
"^^ '^- -^ "•■ ^- -- - -'^ -^^ ,. 















^^A^o ^^-..# 



^^ ^^d< 



^<^ 







-s. -CLl^ 











\; 






%.^'' 



V ^ ^ " , -^ 

^ "^ " ^'^- '^ \^ 



^ 
^ "^^O^ 






pf °- 






o^ » ;. 



ay ri^ 







,^^9. 



Lf^^ 



: \ ,^^ ^^^ 







9d. ^0 










9^ A^ 






^^o"* 



<kV 






' .<6- Q 






"•■* a'p^ 



■^ .«:?-' 



.^^ ^ 






>^.-o/% 






C *y 




^ ^9^ °.WJ^/ f 

^^^-0.-%. V^^'"-,'^.^ .^.^^^''%> 






^^'^'^" s 



' ^^ % ,# /■ 



3^ ^V. 







^■* A^ 




^u 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAI/k 

EDITED BY 

THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 

OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE 

Volume III] [Number 1 



HISTORY 



ELECTIONS 



AMERICAN COLONIES 



BY 

CORTLANDT F. BISHOP. PH.D. 



COLUMBIA COLLEGE 

^Kw York 
1893 



POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. 

A review devoted to the historical, statistical and comparative study 
of politics, economics and public law. 



Plan.— The field of the Q,uarterly is indicated by its title; its object is to give the results 
of scientific investigation in this field. The Q,uarterly follows the most important movements 
of foreign politics, but dovotes chief attention to questions of present interest in the United 
States. On such questions its attitude is non-partisan. Every article is signed ; and every arti 
cle, including those of the editors, expresses simply the personal view of the writer. 

Editors. — The Q,uarterly is under the editorial management of theUniversityFaculty of 
Political Science, Columbia College. 

Contributors. — The list includes university and college teachers, politicians, lawyers, 
journalists and business men in all parts of the United States, and English and Continental pro- 
fessors and publicists. Among the contributors of the past seven years have been, in addition to 
the members of the faculty : 

Prof. H. C. Adams (Mich. U.), Statistician of the Interstate Commerce Commission ; Pres. 
Andrews (Brown U.); H. O. Arnold-Forster ; Prof. Ashley (Toronto U.); H. H. Asquith, M.P., 
Sir Geo. Baden-Powell ; Frederic Bancroft, Librarian State Dept. U. S. A.; Prof. Bemis (Van- 
derbiltU.); E. G. Bourne (Western Reserve U.); J. E. Bowen, The Independent ; J.G. Brooks 
(Harvard U.); E. P Cheyney (Penn. U.); Prof. J. B. Clark (Smith Coll.); Prof. Cohn (Gottin- 
gen U.); Clarence Deming, iVifw/ //aj/^>j iVi?a/j; Rev. S. W. Dike; Hon. J. F. Dillon; J. P. 
Dunn, Jr., State Librarian (Ind.): Prof Elliott (Minn. U.); R. P. Falkner (Penn. U.); Prof 
Farnam (Yale U.); W. C Ford, (formerly of the) State Dept. U.S. A.; Kuno Fraucke (Har- 
vard U.): A. Gauvain, Le Te7nps (Paris); Prof. Giddings (Bryn Mawr Coll.); Prof. Gide (Mont- 
pellier, France), Revue d' ^conomie Politique; George Gunton ; Prof. Hadley (Yale U.)- Prof 
Hart (Harvard U.); Geo. K. Holmes, Census Bureau, U.S.A.; Prof. Howard (Neb. U.); Prof. 
Hudson (Mich. U.); Prof. Huff (Vermont U.); Hon. Wm. M. Ivins ; Prof. James (Penn. U.); 
Hon. John A. Jameson ; Prof. Jenks (Ind. U.); Rev. Wm. C. Langdon ; Prof. Laughlin (Cor- 
nell U.); Hon. Alfred E. Lee; Prof. Levermore (Mass. Tech. Inst.); Pres. Low (Columbia 
Coll.); Prof. Maitland (Cambridge U.): Brander Matthews : J. B. Moore, State Dept. U. S. A.- 
Prof Morse (Amherst Coll.); Prof. G. B. Newcomb (N. Y. City CoiU; Prof. Patten (Penn.U.)- 
T. B. Perkins; Fred. Perry Powers, Chicago Times; E. I. Renick, Treasury Dept., U. S. A.: 
Hon. Theodore Roosevelt; Hon. Irving B. Richman ; Hon. Eutrene Schuyler; Hon. W. L 
Scruggs; Prof. Shaw (Cornell U.); Freeman Snow (Harvard U.); C. B. Spahr, N.Y. Commer- 
cial Advertiser ; F. J. Stimson ; Prof Taussig (Harvard U.); Prof. Trent (Sewanee U )■ Pres 
Walker (Mass. Tech. Inst.); Prof. Warner (Neb. U.); Prof. Woodrow Wilson (Coll. of N J )• 
Horace White, N. Y. £e'?«2;if /><?.?/. " 

Reviews. — Each number contains careful reviews by specialists of recent publications. 

Record.— The Record of Political Events, published twice a year, gives a resum6 of politi- 
cal and social movements throughout the world. 

Communications in reference to articles, reviews and exchanges, should be addressed to Prof. 
W. A. DUNNIIVG, Columbia College, N. Y. City. Subscriptions should be forwarded, 
and all business communications addressed, to GINN &. COMPANY, 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y. 
City ; 180 Wabash Ave., Chicago ; 9 and 13 Tremont Place, Boston. 



Yearly Subscription, Tliree Dollars. Back Numbers and bound Vol. 
umes can be obtained from the publishers. 



/fs^- 



I 

HISTORY OF 
ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY 

THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 

OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE 

Volume Hi] [Number I 



HISTORY 



s 



AMERICAN COLONIES 



BY 

CORTLANDT F. BiSHOP, PH.D. 



COLUMBIA COLLEGE 

New York 
1893 



sv^t^j 



/c- 



Copyright, 1893, 

BY 

CORTLANDT F. BISHOP. 



,0 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PART I. GENERAL ELECTIONS. 

PAGE 

Chapter L History of General Elections. . . i 

§ I. Massachusetts and Plymouth 2 

§ 2, New Hampshire 6 

§ 3. Rhode Island 7 

§ 4. Connecticut and New Haven 12 

§ 5. New York 16 

§ 6. New Jersey 22 

§ 7. Pennsylvania and Delaware 28 

§ 8. Maryland 33 

§ 9. Virginia.. 35 

§ 10. The Carolinas 36 

§ II. Georgia >. . . . 43 

Chapter II, The Suffrage. 

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ELECTORS 46 

§ I. Ethnic 51 

§ 2. Political 52 

§ 3. Moral 53 

§ 4. Religious , 56 

§ 5- Age 64 

(iii) 



iy TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§ 6. Sexual 65 

§ 7. Residential. . . . , 66 

§ 8. Property 69 

A. The County Franchise 69 

i) Class of Estate Required 80 

2) Length of Possession Required . . 82 

3) Proof of Property Qualification . . 83 

B. The Town or Borough Franchise . . 86 

§ 9. Miscellaneous 90 

§ 10. The Admission of Freemen. ....... 92 

Chapter III. The Management of Elections. . . 98 

§ I. The Calling of an Election . 99 

§ 2. Publication of the Writ , no 

§ 3. Hours of Election. 113 

§ 4. Election Officers 114 

§ 5. Nomination of Candidates 120 

§ 6. Manner of Voting (Personal or by Proxy) . 127 

§ 7. Method of Taking the Vote 140 , 

A. New England 140 

i) Election of General Officers. ... 140 

2) Election of Deputies 154 

B. The Royal Provinces lec 

C. The Proprietary Governments. ... 165 

§ 8. Count of the Votes 17c 

§ 9. Return of the Writ i^p 

§ 10. Provisions against Fraud igc 

§ II. Contested Elections _ j37 

§ 12. Privileges of Voters igo 

§ 13. Compulsory Voting joq 

§14. Bribery and other Means of Influencing 

Voters . IQ9 

§ 15. Sanction of the Election Laws 198 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. V 

PAGE 

PART II. LOCAL ELECTIONS. 

Chapter I. History of Local Elections .... 203 

§ I. Town Elections 204 

§ 2. Parish Elections 212 

§ 3. Municipal Elections 215 

Chapter II. The Suffrage. . 219 

§ I. Town Elections 219 

§ 2. Parish Elections 223 

§ 3. Municipal Elections 224 

Chapter III. The Management of Local 

Elections 226 

§ '. Town Elections 226 

§ 2. Parish Elections 229 

§ 3. Municipal Elections . 232 

Appendix A. Writs, Returns and Oaths .... 239 

I. Writs and Returns 240 

II. Oaths 255 

§ I. Freemen and Electors 255' 

§ 2. Election Officers 268 

Appendix B. Unpublished Statutes Relating to 

Elections . 269 

Appendix C. Authorities Quoted 289 

Appendix D. Tables of Regnal and Proprietary 

Years 296 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



IN THE 



AMERICAN COLONIES. 



PART I— GENERAL ELECTIONS. 



CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF GENERAL ELECTIONS. 

Throughout the colonial period of American history, be- 
ginning at the earliest times and continuing down to the 
Declaration of Independence, there existed in the various 
colonies some system of popular elections. Deprived as the 
colonists were of a voice in the deliberations of the home 
government, the people of every province, whether royal, 
proprietary, or chartered, exercised a partial check on the 
arbitrary rule of the governor and his council, by means of 
a legislative assembly, whose members were chosen on the 
basis of a limited popular suffrage. In several of the more 
northern colonies the people possessed the power of electing 
their governor and other general offtcers, while nearly every- 
where the more local oflficials held their positions by virtue of 
popular suffrage. Nor was this system of election by the 
people entirely confined to English colonies ; for, as we shall 
see in due course, it obtained a partial foothold in the Dutch 
province of New Netherland. 



2 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

§ I. Massachusetts and Plymouth. In Massachusetts the 
election of a Governor, Deputy-Governor and eighteen as- 
sistants on the last Wednesday of Easter term was authorized 
by the Charter of 1628, under which the colony was founded/ 
Endicott, the first governor, was chosen by the company in 
London in April, i62g,^ but in October of the following 
year it was resolved that the Governor and Deputy-Gov- 
ernor should be chosen by the assistants out of their own 
number.^ After 1632, however, the Governor was chosen 
by the whole body of the freemen from among the assistants* 
at a general court or assembly held in May^ of each year. 
The Deputy-Governor was elected at the same time. The 
charter, as already mentioned, provided also for the annual 
election of assistants or magistrates, whose number was 
fixed at eighteen.® This number appears not to have been 
regularly elected, for in October, 1678, in response to the de- 
mands of the home government a special election was held in 
order to bring the assistants up to the required number of 
eighteen.^ 

Besides the officers mentioned in the charter, an order of 
1647 declared that a treasurer, major-general, admiral at sea, 
commissioners for the United Colonies, secretary of the 
General Court and "such others as are, or hereafter may be, 
of like general nature" should be chosen annually "by the 
freemen of this jurisdiction."** The voting took place in 

1 I Alassachitsetts Colonial Records, lo, 12, 

■■^ Ibid., 37 j. -^ Ibid., 79, 

^Ibid.,%. ^ Ibid., 10^. 

« See also letter of Charles II. to the colony in 1662, which states that not 
more than eighteen, nor less than ten assistants were to be annually chosen. (^ 
Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. 2,' 166. 

^ 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records; 195. 

^Laws, chap. 45, § 4, ed. Cambridge 1660, 28; ed. 1814, 107; 2 Massachusetts 
Colonial Records, 220 ; Commissioners for United Colonies first chosen in 1644, 
2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 69. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 3 

Boston in May, at a "court of election" held annually, and 
freemen could vote at fiirst only in person, but eventually by 
proxy also, if they desired to do so.^ The last election of 
general officers under the Charter of 1628 was held on May 
1 2th, 1686,^ and soon afterward the government passed into 
the hands of a President and Council appointed by the Eng- 
lish crown. '"' 

In Plymouth, as in Massachusetts, general officers were 
elected every year by the freemen of the colony. The first 
governor was chosen on January ist, 1620-1,* though the 
existing records do not mention an election before 1632-3.^ 
The other general officers were the assistants.® At first but 
one was chosen.' From 1624 till 1633 four were elected 
and it was not until the latter year that the full number of 
seven was chosen,* The last annual election of governor 
before the merging of New Plymouth into the province of 
Massachusetts Bay took place in June, 1691." Besides the 
governor and assistants, two commissioners for the United 
Colonies and a treasurer were annually elected.'** Just before 
Plymouth was incorporated into the royal province of Mas- 
sachusetts Bay, a law was passed providing that county 
magistrates or associates should be elected by the freemen 
of each county." 

^ See chap, iii, § 6, page 127, post. 

^ 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 513. 

^ 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 207. 

* I Palfrey, History of New England, Appendix. 

* I Plymouth Colony Records, 5. 

^ Laws, 1636; Brigham ed., 1836, 37; 11 Plyjuotdh Colony Records, 7. The 
laws in the edition of 1836 are also reprinted in the eleventh volume of the Ply- 
mouth Colony Records. 

'' I Palfrey, History of Nezv England, Appendix. 

8 Ibid. 

^ 6 Plymouth Colony Records, 264. 

^^ Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § 2, Brigham, 257. 

^^ Lazus, 1691, Brigham, 237. 



. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

In both Massachusetts and New Plymouth all freemen had 
originally a personal voice in the transaction of public busi- 
ness at the general courts or assemblies which were held at 
stated intervals. One of these was known as the Court of 
Election, and at this were chosen the officers of the colony 
for the ensuing year. As the number of settlements in- 
creased, it became inconvenient for freemen to attend the 
general courts in person and they were allowed to be repre- 
sented by deputies. Massachusetts provided for this con- 
tingency by an act of 1634,^ and required all towns contain- 
ing more than ^thirty freemen to send not more than two 
deputies. Towns with less than thirty freemen had the op- 
tion of sending two deputies, although, if they had less than 
twenty, they could send but one. In case there were not 
as many as ten freemen in a town, they could unite with 
their nearest neighbor in sending a deputy to the general 
courts. These deputies were to serve for a year and were 
granted the " full power of all the freemen deputed to them 
for the making and establishing of laws, granting lands, etc., 
the matter of election of officers only excepted."^ In the 
course of time the number of deputies became so large that 
several attempts were made to restrict each tov/n to one rep- 
resentative, but they were unwilling to surrender their privi- 
lege of sending two if they so preferred.^ The inconvenience 
of compelhng all freemen to attend the courts of election 
finally gave rise to the proxy system, by means of which, as 
will be explained in a later chapter, the deputies carried 
the votes of their townsmen to Boston.^ 

In Plymouth the system of sending deputies originated in 
1639, when Plymouth was represented in the general court 

^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, ii8. 
"^ Laws, chap. 35, §§ i, 2; ed. 1660, 25; ed. 1814, 97. 
* 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 3, 88, 209, 217, 231. 
*I Massachtisetts Colonial Records, 166 (1636-7), 188. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 



5 



by four deputies and each of the other towns by two.^ The 
function of these deputies was, as in Massachusetts, to assist 
the magistrates in making laws, but these enactments were for 
a time subject to the approval of the freemen, who were re- 
quired to attend the June court for that purpose.''' It was 
not till 1652 that the deputies were permitted to carry the 
proxies of their fellow townsmen to the court of election,' 
though Rehoboth had been granted this privilege five years 
before/ In 1638 a law was passed which gave the general 
court power to reject deputies who had been sent by the 
towns for the purpose of assisting the magistrates in mak- 
ing laws, if they judged them unfit ; in such cases the towns 
were required to elect other representatives.'' 

During the rule of Dudley and of Andros, the whole legis- 
lative power of Massachusetts was lodged in a council," ap- 
pointed by the crown through its governor, and popular 
election in the New England colonies was limited to the 
choice of selectmen at a single meeting held annually in each 
town, on the third Monday in May.' 

The ultimate result of the revolution of 1688 in England, 
was to unite Massachusetts and New Plymouth under the 
Charter of 1691. By virtue of this instrument, "the Great 
and General Court of Assembly" was to consist of "the Gov- 
ernor and Council or Assistants for the time being, and such 
Freeholders of our said Province or Territory as shall be from 

^ See I Plymouth Colony Records, 1 26. 

''■laws, 1638, Brigham, 63; Laws, 1646, Brighara, 88. These deputies were 
called committees. 

•'■Laws, 1652, Brigham, 94; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § I; Brig- 
ham, 256. 

^ Laws, 1647, Brigham, 89. 

* Brigham, 112; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § 8, Brigham, 259. 

^ 2 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 3. 

^ 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 427. 



5 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

time to time elected or deputed by the Major parte of the 
Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the respective Townes 
and Places." The governor, deputy governor, and secretary 
and the first assistants were appointed. After the first year, 
the assistants were to be annually elected by the general as- 
sembly.^ The number of deputies to be returned by towns 
having more than a hundred and twenty freeholders, was fixed 
at two by a statute passed in 1692-3. If it had less than this 
number of freeholders, it could elect but one. Boston alone 
could return four.^ Under this charter, with the exception of 
these deputies, the only elective officers whose functions were 
at all general in their nature were the county treasurers, and 
they were chosen upon the basis of the town rather than 
upon the basis of the provincial suffrage.^ 

§ 2. New Hampshire. In the detached settlements which 
sprang up in the southern portion of what is now New 
Hampshire, all officers were originally elected. Thus in 
Dover, after 1633, a governor was annually chosen,* while 
Exeter^ and Hampton*^ seem to have had a similar custom. 
In Portsmouth before 1640, a governor and two assistants 
appear to have been elected.' In 1641 these towns were 
taken into the colony of Massachusetts, and as such sent 
deputies to the general court at Boston.* 

The crown, in 1679 constituted a separate government for 
New Hampshire, claiming that the towns had been un- 
lawfully taken possession of by Massachusetts. The com- 
mission of John Cutts as first President of the new province 

^See charter, 3 Will, and Mary; Poore, Constitutions, 949; i Ames and 
Goodell, ed., i%6g, Acts and Resolves, 10, 11, 12. 
"^ Laws, 1692-3, chap. 38; i Ames and Goodell, 88. 
^ Laws, 1692-3, chap. 27, § i ; i Ames and Goodell, 63. 
* I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 119. ^ Ibid., 144, et seq. 
^Ibid.,!^-]. ''Ibid.,\\\. 

^ Ibid., 154, 369, etc. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 7 

ordered him to call a general assembly by summons under 
the great seal, in such a manner as he and his council saw 
fit.^ By virtue of the authority thus granted, the first as- 
sembly elected by the province met at Portsmouth, on 
March i6th, 1679-80, and was opened with prayer and a ser- 
mon.' After this, assemblies were to be called annually at 
Portsmouth, and this appears to have been done except 
during the years from 1686 to 1692, during a part of which 
period the power of Andros obtained in New Hampshire.* 
Governor Allen's commission of 1692 again provided for an 
assembly of the freeholders,* and the last assembly elected 
under the royal government, met in May, 1775." A statute 
requiring assemblies to be re-elected every three years seems 
to have been proposed in 1723." 

§ 3. Rhode Island. Before the charter of 19 Charles I., the 
several towns that finally formed the colony of Rhode Island 
appear to have been independent of one another and to have 
elected their own officers. The early records are incomplete, 
but in 1638 we find that Portsmouth established a govern- 
ment "according to the Word of God."^ Providence in 
1636 also did something similar.® In Portsmouth during 
the year 1638, a chief magistrate with the title of judge 
and also several elders, a constable, and a sergeant appear to 
have been chosen.^ Providence had some part in this elec- 
tion.'" 

The earliest evidence on the subject of elections in the 

^ I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 379, 

2 I Belknap, History of New Hampshire, ilT, I New Hampshire Provincial 
Papers, 395. 

■^ 2 A^etu Hampshire Provincial Papers. * Ibid., 58. 

5 7 N-ew Hampshire Provincial Papers, 371. 

® 4 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 1 14. 

' I Rhode Island Colojiial Records, 53, 815. ^ Ibid., 14. 

s/^zV., 52, 64, 65. ^° Ibid., 6^. 



8 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

Newport records speaks of the presence of the judge and 
elders from Portsmouth. A joint government was set up for 
the three towns and it was determined to have the judge, 
elders and all other officers of the " Bodie Incorporate" an- 
nually chosen at a general court or assembly " by the greater 
body of freemen present."^ At the first election which took 
place in the month of March, 1639-40, the chief magistrate 
was given the title of governor, and the next that of deputy- 
governor, the remainder being assistants. Two of the assist- 
ants and either the deputy-governor or the governor were to 
be chosen from each of the towns. Two treasurers and a 
constable for Newport, as well as one for Portsmouth and a 
"sarjeant" were also chosen.^ At the election of the follow- 
ing year the government was declared a democracy and the 
power of the freemen to make laws and depute officers to 
execute them was established. •■* 

The charter of Providence Plantations granted not by 
the crown but, on account of the civil war which was then 
raging in England, by Commissioners under authority of 
Parliament, allowed the inhabitants of the colony power 
to rule themselves.* In addition to the three towns already 
mentioned, Warwick was taken into the colony.^" It seems 
that this town had established no government of its own, not 
because it was opposed to such a thing, but because it 
considered legal authority from England necessary.'' The 
officers of the colony, chosen at the first election in 1647, 
were a President, four assistants (one from each town), 
a recorder, a treasurer and a " general sargant," who seems to 
have been a sort of high sheriff.^ One of the assistants often 

' I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 90, 98. 

"^ Ibid., 100, loi, 112, 120, 126, 127. ^ Ibid., 112. 

^ Ibid., ii,i,. ^ Ibid., 129, 14S. 

^Ibid., 129. "^ Ibid., 191. 

^ Ibid., 197. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



9 



held the office of treasurer as well.' It was not long before 
a schism took place in the colony. Portsmouth and New- 
port, which were situated on Rhode Island, separated them- 
selves from Providence and Warwick. Each half of the con- 
federacy had a separate legislative assembly and elected its 
own governor and two assistants.^ After various negotia- 
tions between the opposing factions, the breach was closed 
in the summer of 1654 and the old form of government re- 
sumed.'^ About this time an " attorney" and a solicitor were 
annually elected.* 

After the accession of Charles the Second, in order to 
avoid any question of the validity of the first, a second 
charter was obtained. In the new instrument, under date of 
1663,'' the officers of the colony were named, and it was pro- 
vided that in future a governor, a deputy-governor and ten 
assistants were to be elected annually by the company, which 
was composed of all the freemen." By a resolution of the 
legislature in the following year, it was provided that 
annual elections should be held for minor officers as under 
the old charter." A plurality of votes was declared sufficient 
to elect, but in case the person chosen refused to serve — and 
this happened quite frequently — the general assembly was 
empowered to fill vacancies.** Except during the Andros 
regime,^ elections were held regularly until the Revolution,"* 

The bond of union between the Rhode Island towns 
was at first very loose, and there seems to have been 
no occasion for a general legislative assembly. It was not 
until after the charter of 1644 that steps were taken toward 

' I Rhode Islaitd Colonial Records, 209. ^ Ibid., 233, 244, 262, 265. 

» /(Jzo'., 268, 278, 2S2. */i5?^., 278, 282. 

^15 Car. II. ^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 7. 

' Ibid., 38. 8 y^^-^_^ ^T^^ 

" 1686-1690; 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 187, 267. 

^^ 7 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 510. 



jQ HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

a meeting of deputies from the towns. Thus we find that 
in 1647 Providence sent a "committee" to Portsmouth to 
join with committees from other towns in order to form a 
government.^ The fifth " act and order " estabhshed by 
this convention provided that each town should send a 
committee to every general court, and these, like the 
deputies in Massachusetts and Plymouth, could exercise the 
powers of the freemen in all matters excepting the election 
of ofBcers.^ The committee from each town should consist 
of six members.^ 

The power of making laws, possessed by these commit- 
tees, was subject to popular approval expressed by means 
of a process somewhat resembling the French plebiscite or 
the referendum as it exists in Switzerland at the present day.* 
Matters of general import were required to be proposed 
in some town meeting, and notice must be given of this to 
each of the other towns. Towns which approved of the pro- 
position were ordered to declare their opinion at the next gen- 
eral court through their committees. If the court decided in 
favor of the proposition a law was passed which had authority 
only until ratified by the next general assembly of all the 
people. The'~ general court was also allowed to debate mat- 
ters on its own motion, but its decisions must be reported to 
each town by the committee representing that town. A 
meeting of the town was held to debate on the questions so 
reported, and then the votes of the inhabitants were collected 
by the town clerk, and forwarded with all speed to the re- 
corder of the colony. The latter was to open in the pres- 
ence of the governor all votes so received, and if a majority 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 42. 

^ Ibid., 147. 

^ Ibid., 229, 236. 

' I Bryce, Ame7-icaji Cofn?no7iivealtk, 448. 



IN THE AMERTCAN COLONIES. I i 

voted affirmatively the resolution of the court was to stand 
as law until the next general assembly.^ 

This complex method of referendum was repealed in 
1650, and instead, it was ordered that all laws enacted 
by the assembly should be communicated to the towns 
within six days after adjournment. Within three days after 
the laws were received, the chief officer of each town 
was to call a meeting and read them to the freemen. If any 
freeman disliked a particular law he could, within ten days, 
send his vote in writing, with his name affixed, to the 
general recorder. If within ten days the recorder received a 
majority of votes against any law, he was to notify the presi- 
dent of that fact, and the latter in turn was to give notice 
to each town that such law was null and void. Silence as 
to the remaining enactments was assumed to mean assent.'^ 

After 1658 the recorder was allowed ten days instead of 
six, as the period within which the laws must be sent to the 
towns. The towns were given another ten days for con- 
sideration, and then if the majority of the free inhabitants 
of any one of them in a lawful assembly voted against a 
given enactment, they could send their votes sealed up in 
a package to the recorder. If a majority from every 
town voted against the law it would be thereby nullified ; 
but unless this was done within twenty days after the ad- 
journment of the court the law would continue binding. 
The recorder must always canvass the votes of the towns in 
the presence of the president of the colony, but if the latter 
were absent, the presence of the assistant in the town where 
the recorder lived was needed.^ A further modification of 
the referendum was made in 1660. By the act of that year, 
three months ("fowre score and sixda,ies") were allowed for 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 149. 

'^ Ibid., 229. ^ Ibid., 401. 



J 2 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS. 

the return of the votes to the recorder. Instead of a major- 
ity of each town, a majority of all the free inhabitants of the 
colony was sufificient to nullify a law, although indeed, any 
one town should be wholly silent on the subject/ No men- 
tion of the referendum under the second charter has been 
found. ■ Under that charter four deputies from each of the 
four original towns, except Newport, which was still allowed 
six, and two deputies from each of the other towns, were 
constituted a general assembly which was to sit in May and 
October of each year in conjunction with the assistants.^ 
With the exception of the years from 1686 to 1690 the 
assembly sat regularly under this charter until the revolu- 
tion. 

§ 4. Connecticut and New Haven. The colony of Con- 
necticut was fully organized in 1665, under authority of the 
charter of 14 Charles 11.^ Before that time there had been 
two separate governments, the one at New Haven, the other 
at Hartford. In order, therefore, to get a clear idea of their 
development, it will be necessary to trace the history of each 
part with special reference to the subject of popular election. 

The first meeting of all the " free planters " of New Haven 
took place on the fourth day of the fourth month (June) 
1639, for the purpose of "settling ciuill Gouernm' accord- 
ing to God, and about the nominatio of persons thatt 
might be founde by consent of all fittest, in all respects for 
the foundaco work of a church w(hich) was intended to be 
gathered in Quinipieck." The meeting was opened by "a 
solemn invocatio of the name of God in prayer (for) the 
presence and help of his speritt, and grace in those weighty 
businesses." There was considerable discussion as to 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 429. 
' 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 8. 
^2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 5. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I 3 

whether the planters should give to free burgesses the power 
of making ordinances, but it was ultimately decided to do so. 
The minutes of the meeting show that this decision was 
arrived at on the authority of several passages from the 
Bible — such as " Take you wise men and understanding, 
and known among your tribes and I will make them rulers 
over you,"^ and "Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee 
whom the Lord thy God shall choose ; one from among thy 
brethren shalt thou set king over thee ; thou mayest not set 
a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."' The model 
followed in the governmental organization was the liveries of 
the city of London which chose the magistrates and were 
themselves elected by the companies. Accordingly, the 
planters of New Haven elected a committee of eleven men, 
and gave them power to choose the seven pillars of the 
theocracy they had decided to establish.' The seven pillars 
met as a court of election in October of the same year and 
admitted upon oath several members of " approved churches." 
After reading a number of passages from the Bible bea/- 
ing on the subject of an ideal ruler, they proceeded to 
the election of a chief magistrate and four deputy magis- 
trates, with a marshal and a " publique notary," to hold 
office for the ensuing year.* At this meeting, all members 
of the church v/ere admitted to membership in the general 
court. In 1643 Stamford was admitted to a share in the 
government, and New Haven chose for that town a magis- 
trate and four assistants.^ Other towns were admitted later, 
the franchise in them being likewise restricted to church 
members.® 

In 1 643 the towns in General Court assembled adopted a set 

^ Deuteronomy \. 13. 

"^ Deuteronomy yi\\i. 15; also Exodus xviii. 21, and i Corinthians vi. i to 7. 
^ I New Haven Colonial Records, 11-14. "^ Ibid., 20. 

^Ibid.,%1. ^ Ibid., wo. 



J. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

of " Fundamental Orders," or written constitution, which 
provided among other matters, for the election of a governor, 
deputy-governor, and other magistrates, with a secretary and 
a marshal.' Commissioners for the United Colonies were 
chosen this year'^ by the general court, and after October, 
1644 by the freemen.^ As has already been noticed, the prin- 
ciple of representation by deputies in the making of laws 
seems to have been recognized at the meeting of 1639. 
Deputies appear to have been chosen semi-annually after 
May, 1641,^ and at first were little more than a jury to assist 
the magistrates. In 1643 Stamford sent two deputies to the 
general court at New Haven.* The fundamental orders 
passed in the same year called for a " general court for the 
jurisdiction," and to this two deputies were sent from each 
plantation in the colony. The court was to meet in April 
and in October, or oftener if called, and the governor, deputy- 
governor and magistrates sat with the deputies from the 
towns." There was, therefore, at New Haven, the general 
c^urt "for the jurisdiction" as well as a general court for the 
town of New Haven at which deputies were chosen for the 
jurisdiction court.' 

In the Hartford colony, which was Connecticut proper, 
the earliest mention of elections is found in the Funda- 
mental Orders of 1638, which have become famous as the 
first written constitution framed on the American continent. 
It was enacted that a governor and six magistrates should 
be chosen annually by the freemen of the jurisdiction,^ A 
deputy-governor was also chosen.'' The charter of 14 

^i Neiv Haven Coloitial Records, 112, 191. 

2/3/^., 87, 117. '^Ibid.,\i,']. 

^Ibid., 51, 58, 69, 78, 85. ^Ibid., 85. 

^Ibid.,\\/i,. '' Ibid., I2t„i2g. 

^i Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. ^ Ibid., 27. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES, 



15 



Charles II, which placed the New Haven and the Hartford 
colonies under one government, provided for the same gen- 
eral ofificers, together with twelve assistants/ In 1689 it was 
ordered that a secretary and a treasurer should also be 
elected.'^ Although, as is well known, Andros did not suc- 
ceed in taking away the charter of Connecticut, he, neverthe- 
less, took the government into his hands in the autumn of 
1687.^ Upon his imprisonment in Boston in 1689 the old 
ofificers took up their duties again,* and a new election was 
held in the spring of the following year.^ The Fundamental 
Orders of 1638 also provided that deputies should perform 
all the business, legislative or judicial, of the freemen, except 
the election of colonial officers." If, however, a change in 
the constitution was proposed, notice to that efifect must be 
inserted in the warrants calling for an election of deputies, 
and those towns which sent proxies to the general elections 
were requested to send in their votes in a similar manner on 
the question of the projected change." There were two gen- 
eral courts each year, namely, in October and in May^ so t^at 
there was, accordingly, a semi-annual election of deputies in 
each town. Under the charter the custom of sending dep- 
uties to the general courts was continued, and they ulti- 
mately formed the lower house of the legislature. The only 
occasions on which ofificers of the colony were elected by the 
assembly were when vacancies were caused by the death of 

^ 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 5; also Session Laws, 1 715, 30. 

^4 Connecticut Colonial Recoj'ds, II. 

^ 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 248. 

* Ibid., 250. For a contemporaneous account of the proceedings at this time 
see ibid., 455, et seq. 

^ 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 22. 

® I Connecticttt Colonial Records, 25. '' Ibid, 346, 7. 

^ Ibid., 21. 



J 5 HIS TOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

persons in office. Thus, in 1707/ 1724,^ and again in 1741,^ 
a governor was chosen by both houses of the legislature. 
In the early part of the eighteenth century it was enacted 
that all officers must have a majority of votes in order to be 
elected. If this number was not secured, the assembly had 
the power to choose the officers.* 

In all colonies south of New England, as we shall see in. 
due course, the governor was appointed either by the Eng- 
lish crown or by the proprietors, who held by charter or 
grant from the crown. There was, however, everywhere, at 
some time or other, a legislative assembly chosen by the 
colonists. 

§ 5. New York. While New Netherland remained under 
Dutch rule the people had no voice in the choice of those 
officers whose duties were more than local in character. 
The governor was an appointee of the West India Com- 
pany, and responsible solely to it ; though the latter was 
subject to a certain amount of control from the States Gen- 
eral. That the people desired the privflege of electing 
their general officers, is shown by a petition sent in 1649 to 
the States General from the Nine Men. A request was 
made in this document for a suitable system of govern- 
ment, and it was accompanied by a sketch of the methods of 
written proxies used by the New England colonies in select- 
ing their governors.^ On the other hand, a letter sent two 
years later by the magistrates of Gravesend to the directors 
at Amsterdam, stated that it would involve "ruin and de- 
struction" to frequently change the government by allowing 
the people to elect the governor, partly on account of the 
numerous factions, and partly because there were no persons 

' 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 38. ^ 6 Connecticut Colonial Records, 484. 
^8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 416. ^ Ibid., 453. 

^ I N'ew York Colonial Documents, 266 



IN THE AAIERICAN COLONIES. . 1 7 

in the province capable of filling the office/ Nor did the 
Dutch colonists possess any voice in the making of laws. 
There was no regular representative assembly, although we 
find that there were several emergencies when the advice of 
the people was asked by the governors. Thus in 1641 Gov- 
ernor Kieft requested tlje commonalty to elect a board of 
twelve men to advise him. But he dissolved the board as 
soon as they failed to comply with his wishes.^ 

Two years later Kieft again asked the commonalty to 
elect a board. But they preferred not to do so and re- 
quested the Governor and his council to make the selec- 
tion, reserving to themselves, however, the right to reject 
any person they disliked. As a result of this action, the 
"Eight" were chosen, and for a time they sat at intervals and 
sent complaints to the Amsterdam chamber of the West 
India Company.' The Eight finally met with the fate of the 
Twelve. A third board, this time consisting of nine men, was 
formed in 1647 under Governor Stuyvesant. The people of 
New Amsterdam elected eighteen persons and from these 
the director and his council selected the members of the 
board. As this body was self-renewing, popular election 
ceased after the first eighteen names were submitted to the 
governor. A charter was granted to the Nine, but their ex- 
istence was shortlived.* In 1653 there was more than the 
usual amount of dissatisfaction in the colony at the arbitrary 
rule of the governor, chiefly, perhaps, on account of Indian 
troubles. Delegates from several of the villages met at 
Flushing, and a meeting was held in the city hall of Nev/ 
Amsterdam. Finally, Governor Stuyvesant sent out writs for 

' 2 New York Colonial Docume7tls, 155. 

^ I O'Callaghan, History of New Netkerland, 242, ei seq. 

'^ Ibid., 283 et seq ; I A^ew York Colonial Documents, 191, 213. 

* 2 O'Callaghan, History of Neiv N^etherland, 38, et seq. 



1 8 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

the election of delegates to an assembly at New Amsterdam. 
When the delegates met on December loth, eight towns 
were represented, and on the following day a lengthy re- 
monstrance was drawn up for transmission to the States 
General/ This assembly like the others, had a short exist- 
ence. 

In 1664, however, when the English were threatening im- 
mediate invasion and the affairs of New Netherland were in 
a precarious condition, Governor Stuyvesant, in the extrem- 
ity of the danger, determined to call a representative 
assembly — {^eene Laenddagh) . He therefore, at the request 
of the Burgomasters and Schepens of New Amsterdam, sent 
out writs to all the towns under his rule, calling on them to 
elect deputies by a plurality of votes. Two representatives 
from each town were chosen and composed the assembly 
which met in the city hall of New Amsterdam on the tenth 
day of April.^ This was the last assembly convoked by a 
Dutch Director, for in August of the same year New 
Amsterdam fell into the hands of the English. 

The patent of Charles II., under date of March, 1664, by 
virtue of which the Duke of York acquired his title to New 
York, granted the fuUest powers of government.' Soon after 
the conquest of the territory. Col. Nicolls, who had been 
appointed to his position as governor by the Duke of York, 
addressed a letter to the people of Long Island, caUing on 
them to elect " Deputyes chosen by the major part of the 

1 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 239, et seq. 

2 I Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 728; 2 O'Callaghan, History 
of New Netherland, 505. The latter gives a copy of the certificate of election for 
the deputies from Wiltwyck. This is signed by a number of inhabitants, and 
states, among other matters, that the election was held on March 31st by the sheriff 
and commissaries at the summons of the Director General and Council of New 
Netherland. 

3 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 6^2; Learning and Spicer, 
Grants and Concessions, 3. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



19 



freemen only, which is to bee understood, of all Persons rated 
according to their estates, whether English or Dutch." Four 
days notice of the election was to be given and each town 
was to send two deputies to meet the governor at Hampstead 
in the latter part of February 1664-5.^ This assembly was 
not as representative as the Lantag of Stuyvesant, for only 
Long Island towns were summoned or sent delegates. 
When the convention came together it adopted the code 
know^n as the Duke's Laws. The delegates thought at first 
that they were to organize a government even more liberal 
than that existing in the Puritan colonies, with provision that 
general officers should be elected by the votes of the freemen ; 
but when Governor Nicolls showed that he was authorized 
to appoint all officers they submitted and were dissolved.^ 

The government constituted by the Duke's Laws lasted 
practically till 1691, Only local officers were elected under 
this code. There sat during this period a limited legislature, 
known as the court of assizes, whose members were ap- 
pointed by the governor, but they merely registered the 
decrees of the governor's council and had no more power 
than a French lit de justice:" During the second Dutch 
occupation in 1673 and 1674 there was a provisional gov- 
ernment, and only local officers were elected by the people.* 

When New York was again surrendered to the English 
crown in 1674, the Duke of York obtained a fresh charter, 
similar to his first. A desire for a popular assembly soon 
sprang up, and in 1680 a petition was sent to the Duke 

^ Introduction to yournal of N'ew York Legislative Council, Albany, iS6i, iv. 

^ 2 Brodhead, History of the Slate of N'ew York, 69; Introduction to yournal 
of Nexv York Legislative Ccnmcil, v, vi. 

^ 2 Brodhead, History of the State of N'ew York, 71; Introduction to Journal 
of New York Legislative Council, vi. 

* 2 N'ew York Colonial Doctunents, 574, 579, 680, etc, 

^ Learning and Spicer, 41. 



2 o HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TJONS 

by the court of assizes, asking that the freeholders should 
be allowed to elect a legislature.^ In March, 1 68 1-2 James 
wrote that he would grant the request, and the instructions 
of Governor Dongan authorized him to call such an as- 
sembly,^ by sending out not more than eighteen writs thirty 
days before the date chosen for the meeting of the legisla- 
ture. Dongan reached New York in August, 1683, and soon 
issued writs calling an assembly to meet on October 17th. 
The most important act passed by this body was the Charter 
of Liberties and Privileges. It declared that the 

"Supreme legislative authority under his Majesty and Royall High- 
nesse, James, Duke of York, Albany, etc., shall forever bee and 
reside in a Governor, Councell and the People met a general 
assembly. . .That every freeholder within this province, and every 
freeman in any corporation shall have his free choice and vote in 
the Electing of representatives, without any manner of constraint or 
imposition, and that in all elections the Majority of voices shall 
carry itt, and by freeholders is understood every one who is so 
understood according to the Laws of England." 

The charter then proceeded to apportion the seats in the 
assembly among the various counties.'* The representatives 
together with the governor and council were declared to be 
" forever the supreme and only legislative power, under his 
Royall Highnesse, of the said province." 

The charter was presented .to the duke for his approval, 
and seems to have been amended and affirmed, and then 
ordered sent to New York, as ratified." This order does not 
appear to have been carried into efifect, for at a meeting of the 

' 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, Appendix, 65S. 

^ 1682-3, 3 ^'^^ York Colonial Documents, 317, 330. 

« 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 659, where the charter is given 
in full. 

* 1684, 3 New York Colonial Docujnents, 348; 2 Brodhead, History of the State 
of New York, 416, note. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 21 

Privy Council in March, 1684—5, very soon after James be- 
came King and New York a royal province, it was noted that 
his majesty did not " think fit to confirm it.'" In a report on 
the charter presented at this meeting of the Privy Council 
objections were made to the phrase "the People," because 
such words "are not used in any other constitution in 
America; But only the words General Assembly."' Don- 
gan's first assembly was dissolved in August, 1685, and 
he had called another, when orders arrived from the crown 
vesting all legislative authority in the governor and his 
council.^ Andros took New York, as well as all New Eng- 
land, under his rule, and in accordance with his instruc- 
tions, as already explained," no assemblies were called. 
After Andros' imprisonm'ent Lieutenant-Governor Leisler 
usurped the government of New York and called an assem- 
bly in June, 1689.^ He was superseded and executed by 
authority of Governor Sloughter, who reached America in 
March, 1691, with a commission from William and Mary 
authorizing him to call an assembly.® Within a month after 
his arrival an assembly met and passed a modified form of 
the Charter of Liberties and Privileges which had been 
vetoed by King James in 1684-5.' From this time as- 
semblies were called at intervals until the royal government 
ceased. Representatives were elected by the residents of 
the manors, cities and counties, and the privilege of voting 
is described as the subject's "chiefest Birth Right."** 

' 3 New York Colonial Documents, 357. '^ Ibid., 357. 

^ Ibid., 370. * Ibid., 544. See ante, p. 5. ^ Ibid., 655. . 

^ 3 A^eio York Colo7iial Docinjients, 624; Introdziction to yournal of the N'ew 
York Legislative Council, xxiv, xxv. 

'' Bradford, Laius, ed. 1 710, i ; 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 642. 

8 1 1 Will. III., chap. 74, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. During the later colonial 
period members were returned by the borough of Westchester and by the town 
of Schenectady. I Jones, History ofN'etv York, ed. 1879, 506. 



2 2 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

§ 6. New Jersey. The territory included in the present 
state of New Jersey was originally under the rule of 
the Director General and Council of New Netherland, and it 
also formed a portion of the country granted to James, Duke 
of York, by the patent of 1664/ By indentures of lease 
and release dated respectively June 23rd and June 24th, 1664, 
the proprietor conveyed all his rights in the territory now 
known as New Jersey to John, Lord Berkeley, and Sir 
George Carteret.^ The country was to be settled under the 
name of Nova Caesarea. The lords proprietors, in order to 
encourage settlement in their newly acquired province, issued, 
on February loth, 1664-5, ^ "Concession and Agreement." 
By virtue of this constitution, all persons who became subjects 
of the King of England, and who swore fidelity to the Lords 
Proprietors should be admitted as freemen of the colony. 
Those inhabitants who were either freemen or chief agents to 
others were authorized to choose twelve representatives for a 
general assembly, to be summoned by writs issued as soon as 
Philip Carteret, who had been appointed governor, reached 
the province.'^ Carteret came to America in the latter part of 
1665,* but did not issue a proclamation calling an assembly 
till April, 1668.^ This body was elected by the freeholders 
and met in Elizabeth in May of that year, and after trans- 
acting some business adjourned till the following November." 
No further assemblies were called by the governor, although 
in 1672 there was great discontent in the province, and 
some of the settlers elected delegates to an illegal assembly 
held at Elizabeth. This pretended to act for the whole 
province, and chose as governor an illegitimate son of 

1 I New Jersey Archives, 3. 2 /^/^_^ g^ jq. 

^ Ibid., 30; Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions, 12. 
* I Ne%v Jersey Archives, 48. ° Ibid., 56. 

'^ Ibid., 56; Learning and Spicer, 81, 85. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 23 

Sir George Carteret' In 1673, New Jersey was recon- 
quered by the Dutch and placed, with New York, under a 
provisional government.' 

When peace was restored, the Duke of York received 
from the crown, under date of June 29th, 1674, a new 
grant.^ This included New Jersey and all the other terri- 
tory which had been bestowed on him ten years before. 
Two days later, July ist. Major Andros was commissioned 
governor of all the Duke's territories in America. In spite of 
this, on the 28th and 29th of the same month (July), in- 
dentures of lease and release were executed by the Duke 
conveying East Jersey to Sir George Carteret/ The interest 
of Lord Berkeley in the western half of New Jersey had been 
conveyed by deed of bargain and sale to a certain John 
Fenwick, in trust for Edward Byllinge. Byllinge failed and 
assigned his interest to William Penn and two associates 
as trustees. On July ist, 1676, Sir George Carteret, Byllinge 
and the trustees executed the famous Quintipartite Deed,* by 
which their several claims were satisfied and New Jersey 
separated into two parts, known thereafter as East Jersey 
and West Jersey. The government of East Jersey had al- 
ready been for some time in the hands of Carteret's repre- 
sentatives. He had issued a charter confirming the con- 
cession and agreement promulgated before the Dutcli con- 
quest,^ and an assembly, elected by the freeholders, had met 
under his authority in the month of November, 1674,^ and 
thereafter. In 1680, however. Governor Andros under claim 

' Whitehead, East Jersey tinder the Proprietors, 66, 67. Reference is made to 
the second edition of this work. 

''■ I New Jersey Archives, 121, 125, et seq. " Learning and Spicer, 41. 

* I New Jersey Archives, 160, i6i; Learning and Spicer, 46. 

° I New Jersey Archives, 205; Learning and Spicer, 61. 

^ 1 N'ew Jersey Archives, 167, ct seq.; Learning and Spicer, 50, 58. 

'' Learning and Spicer, 93, et seq. 



2 A HIS TOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

of royal authority exercised governmental powers in East 
Jersey;^ but the death of Carteret and the subsequent release 
from the Duke of York to his heirs, again restored the pro- 
vince to the Carteret family.^ In 1682 a number of convey- 
ances were executed, which resulted in transferring East 
Jersey from the trustees under Carteret's will to twelve pro- 
prietors. These in turn divided their shares with twelve 
others, and the Duke of York confirmed the whole twenty- 
four in their ownership;^ 

The twenty-four proprietors issued in 1683 an elaborate 
instrument, known as the "Fundamental Constitutions of 
East Jersey."* Sixteen of the proprietors were to elect the 
governor from nominations made by each of the twenty-four. 
The power of making laws was placed in a great council, 
consisting of the proprietors or their proxies and a hundred 
and forty-four persons elected by the freemen. On account 
of the small number of towns in the province, however, there 
were to be but ninety-six delegates at first, twenty-four of 
whom came from each of the eight towns and forty-eight 
from the country at large. A third of this number was to 
go out of office and be renewed by popular election each 
year. A common council was to be formed by adding twelve 
freemen, chosen by ballot from the members of the great 
council, to the proprietors or their proxies. All officers ex- 
cept magistrates were to be chosen by the council and the 
governor. It is doubtful whether this constitution was ever 
put into operation. 

The proprietors had appointed a governor for life '" and 
had given him the privilege of remaining at home and ruhng 
his province by a deputy. The latter convoked the first as- 

1 Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, 92. 

"^ I New Jersey Archives, 337. 3 Learning and Spicer. 73, 141. 

"^ Ibid., 153; I New Jersey Archives, 395. ^ Learning and Spicer, 166. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 2C 

sembly under the proprietors at Elizabeth in March 1682-3.^ 
When Andros was carrying out the wishes of James II. by re- 
ducing the American colonies to submission, he siezed East 
Jersey.' Being threatened with a writ of quo warranto, the pro- 
prietors had caused a surrender to be drawn up, but never exe- 
cuted it;'"* they, however, abandoned their property till 1692.* 
After that year assemblies were elected annually until 1698.^ 
The proprietors of West Jersey, who as a matter of fact 
were mostly Quakers, drew up, with the assistance of the 
freeholders and inhabitants of their dominions, a long series 
of Concessions and Agreements.'^ These were supposed 
to form a complete constitution ; but in default of a suffi- 
cient number of settlers, the country was to be governed 
for the time being by a number of commissioners appointed 
by the proprietors. The constitution was to go into effect 
in March, 1680, at which time the proprietors, freeholders 
and inhabitants resident in the province were to meet and 
elect "Ten honest and able Men fit for Gouernment, to offici- 
ate and execute the Place of Commissioners for the Year 
Ensuing."^ The thirty-second chapter of the concessions 
provided that where "divisions or tribes oi" other such like 
distinctions are made" an election should be held annually in 
each of the one hundred proprieties or parts for a freeholder 
or proprietor from each, to be deputy, trustee or represen- 
tative for the "Benefit, Service and Behoof" of the people 
of the province in a " General and Supream Assembly." 
This body was to choose ten commissioners to adminster the 

^ Learning and Spicer, 227. 

^Whitehead, East yersey under the Proprietor's, 147, 159. 

^ 2 New Jersey Archives, 26. 

* Learning and Spicer, 605. ^ Ibid., 312, 380. 

'^ Ibid., 382-409; New Jersey Archives, 241-270. 

'Learning and Spicer, 385. 



2 5 HIS TORY OF ELEC TIONS 

affairs of the province while the General Assembly was not 
in session.^ 

In August, 1680, the Duke of York made another grant 
of the soil to the proprietors of West Jersey .^ and in the fall 
of the following year the deputy-governor who had been ap- 
pointed in England convoked the first legislature. Ten fund- 
amental laws were passed, providing among other things for 
a general assembly to be elected yearly by the free people 
of the province. This elected body was to choose all ofBcers 
of state.^ The members of the next assembly, which met at 
Burlington in May, 1682, had been returned by the sheriff 
from the province as a whole.* To do away with this, a 
statute was passed, requiring each of the ten proprieties to 
choose " their representatives where they are peopled." As 
new proprieties were settled in the future, each tenth was to 
choose ten representatives. The members of the next as- 
sembly were returned by tenths, ten sitting for each tenth. ^ 
The next year (1683) the assembly debated the question, 
and decided that it had power to elect a governor. This was 
done by construing liberally the clause of the constitution 
permitting changes to be made by six-sevenths of the peo- 
ple. They accordingly chose a governor " nemine contra- 
dicente, saue only one member was dubious therein."" Free- 
men were allowed by an act of this year to attend the first 
meeting of each assembly.' From 1685 to 1692, no assem- 
blies were elected, for though no quo warranto was sought 
against New Jersey, the proprietors of both provinces joined 
in the proposd surrender.^ 

^Chap. 38, Learning and Spicer, 385. 

2 Learning and Spicer, 412. 3 j^j^^ ^33. 

*/<5?^., 442. 5/i^?V., 455. 

^Ibid., 471. ''Ibid., 482. 

8 Whitehead, East Jersey tmder the Proprietors, 159; 2 Nerv Jersey Archives, 
26. The elaborate system of proprieties and tenths seems to have been abro- 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



27 



During the later years of the seventeenth century there 
was more or less disorder in both of the provinces, and 
the proprietors of East and West Jersey being for the most 
part the same, a memorial was addressed to the Lords of 
Trade and also to the Lords Justices of England, asking 
that East Jersey be annexed to New York.^ The Lords of 
Trade approved of the suggestion, but would not give New 
Jersey as many representatives as were desired : one-sixth 
of the whole New York assembly was suggested as the 
proper proportion for each of the Jersey provinces.'^ At 
last, in 1 70 1, both sets of proprietors addressed a me- 
morial to the crown, requesting that an assembly be elected 
annually and that it sit alternately in Perth Amboy and Bur- 
lington, two members being elected from each of these towns 
by the inhabitants, who were householders, and sixteen being 
chosen by the freeholders of each province.^ The Board of 
Trade reported in favor of a form of government consisting 
of a governor, council and assembfy.* A deed of surrender 
was executed in April, 1702, and accepted by the Oueen.'^ 
Lord Cornbury was appointed the first royal governor, and 
his commission ** and instructions' required him to call an 
assembly on the lines suggested by the proprietors, except 
that there were to be but ten members from each half and 
only twenty-four in all. Li the autumn of 1703 the first 
royal legislature under this authority was elected.^ By a 

gated by the establishment of counties, {Laws, 1694, chap. 11, Learning and 
Spicer, 533,) Burlington being given twenty members, Gloucester twenty, Salem 
ten, and Cape May five. Each of the first two counties contained two tenths, and 
the third only one. In 1699 (chap. 3, Learning and Spicer, 567), the representa- 
tion of each county was reduced by one-half; but the old number was restored two 
years later (Learning and Spicer, 581). 

^Leaming and Spicer, 588, 591. '^ Ibid., 594. 

'^ Ibid., ^()(). * Ibid., 602,. 

5 Ibid., 609. ^ Ibid., 647. 

"^ Art. 14, Ibid., 623. 

^ I Smith, History of New Jersey, 275; Allinson's Laws, I. 



2 8 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

statute of 1767 new assemblies were to be elected at least 
once in seven years.' 

§ 7. Pennsylvania and Delaware. The country from 
which the provinces of Pennsylvania and Delaware were 
formed was conquered by the Dutch from the Swedes, and 
a portion of it came under the rule of the Duke of York, and 
the code known as the Duke's Laws probably had effect 
after 1676. Charles II. by charter of 1681 granted to William 
Penn a large tract of land between Maryland and the Duke of 
York's territory. The fourth section of the royal charter 
gave the proprietor power to make laws •' with the advice, 
assent and approbation of the freemen of the said country or 
the greater part of them or their delegates or deputies, 
whom, for the enacting of the said laws," Penn was author- 
ized to assemble.^ By a deed from the Duke of York in 
August, 1682, Penn was enfeoffed with the country lying 
within a radius of twelve miles from New Castle, while 
another instrument gave him additional land to the south of 
that town.'' 

In April of the last mentioned year Penn dre\V up and 
promulgated a "Frame of Government." This provided 
that laws should be made by the governor and freemen. 
The latter were to meet in the month of February, 1682-3, 
and elect seventy-two persons of most note for their "wis- 
dom, virtue and ability," to form the provincial council. 
One third of this number was to go out of office every 
year, and their seats were to be filled by vote of the free- 
men. The first assembly was to consist of all the freemen, 
but thereafter it was to be representative. The freemen 
were at first to return two hundred members, though, as 

' 8 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 306, 307. 
^ I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 19. 
^ Laws, Adams ed., New Castle, 1797, i. ■ 



LV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



29 



the country increased in population, the number of assem- 
blymen might be increased to five hundred/ The " Laws 
agreed upon in England " at this time fixed the qualifica- 
tions to be possessed by freemen," and Chalmers in his 
Political Annals.^ says that Penn derived suggestions in 
reference to this matter from Harrington's Oceana. The 
proprietor reached America in the latter part of October, 
1682, and convoked at Chester an assembly of as many 
freemen as saw fit to appear. It met on the fourth day of 
December.* Freemen attended not only from Pennsylvania 
but from the " territories " recently granted to the pro- 
prietor by the Duke of York, and which were now an- 
nexed to the province by legislative action. An act of 
settlement was passed at this meeting, and from this statute 
we find that the freemen had been summoned by writs 
issued by the Proprietary to the sheriffs of each of the 
six counties (three in the " province " and three in the 
"territories" as the Delaware country was called), and 
requested to elect twelve persons from each county to form 
the first provincial council. The freemen had been re- 
quested to attend the assembly in person ; but, the act goes 
on to declare, " the Fewness of the People, their inability in 
Estate and Unskilfulness in Matters of Government" would 
render impracticable so large an assembly as had been 
provided for. Therefore, the statute enacts, that, of the 
twelve persons returned by each county, three should serve 
in the provincial council, and nine in the assembly, while 
the frame of government was declared to be modified in this 
particular.* 

'Articles i, 2, 14, 16; i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 133, et seq. 

''■Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37; Laws, ed. Harrisburg, 1879, 99. 

^ Political Annals, 642. 

* Chalmers, Political Annals, 645 ; i Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 206. 

*Colden, History of the Five Nations, pt. ii., 245; i Votes, Assembly, 1752, I. 



^Q HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

This meeting having been preliminary, Penn called a 
regular assembly to meet in Philadelphia the following 
March.' A new charter or frame of government was passed 
by this body, and approved by Penn. It incorporated 
the provisions of the act of settlement already given, except 
that each county was allowed but six assemblymen instead 
of nine.- One-third of the council, that is, one member from 
each county, was to go out of office each year. 

Except in 1684'' and in 1690,* when the assembly sat in 
Newcastle, legislatures met every year in Philadelphia, until 
1693 when Penn's government was taken away by the crown 
and given to Governor Fletcher of New York. The com- 
mission of the latter empowered him to call an assembly 
elected by freeholders in the same way as the New York 
body.^ He did so in 1693,'^ but in the following year Penn's 
government was restored to him by letters patent from Wil- 
liam and Mary.' Penn appointed William Markham gov- 
ernor, and the latter caused legislatures to be elected in 
September 1695 "^"^^ again in 1696.* The body last men- 
tioned enacted a new frame of government which reduced 
the membership of the council from three to two for each 
county, making in all but twelve. The total number of as- 
semblymen was likewise reduced from thirty-six to twenty- 
four.^ This frame continued to be the constitution of the pro- 
vince till 1701, when Penn, just beiore his final departure for 
England, granted the Charter of Privileges, which remained 
in force down to the revolution. This charter provided for 
an assembly to be annually elected by the freemen, and to 

^ I Votes, Asse?nbl}', 7. " i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, i,2. 

^ I Votes, 24. ^Ibid., 56. 

^ I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 378. ^ Ibid., 382. 

' Ibid., 403. 8 jjjI^_^ ^q^^ ^f ^^^_ 

^ I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 49. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 3 I 

meet on the 14th of October of each year.^ By another charter 
a council of state was instituted, and the governor was given 
power to fill vacancies, so that the assembly was now the 
only legislative body whose members were chosen by the 
votes of the people.' 

Except on the two occasions already mentioned, the in- 
habitants of the "territories" had never favored the sending 
of representatives to the legislature which sat at Phila- 
delphia. In 1699 New Castle defied the writ sent out 
by the governor, and refused to elect assemblymen. In 
consequence of this action a law was passed imposing a 
fine of i^ioo on counties which were deHnquent in sending re- 
presentatives, and providing that the members from those 
counties holding elections should act for all.'' The Charter 
of Privileges allowed two-thirds of the counties to act for all, 
in such a contingency.* Penn, fearing that there might at 
some time be trouble on this point, inserted a clause in the 
Charter of Privileges giving the province and the territories 
power to hold separate legislatures, if they saw fit. In that 
case, each county in Pennsylvania was to be allowed eight 
members and the city of Philadelphia two. The Delaware 
counties could have as many delegates to their assembly as 
they saw fit, and both legislatures, if separated, were to have 
the same power as if they had remained together.^ 

The proprietor had scarcely left America when a dispute 
broke out, and the territories refused to send delegates to the 
Philadelphia assembly, and instead held one of their own in 
October, 1700.'' In 1703 the separation permitted by the 
charter was made, and from that time there were two distinct 
legislatures, one sitting at New Castle for the government of 

^ I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. "-Ibid., 451, note. 

^ I Votes, Assembly, xiii. 

* I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. ° Ibid., 444. 

^Franklin and Hall ed., Delaware Laws, 1752, i. 



2 2 HIS TORY OF RLE C TIONS 

New Castle, Kent and Sussex upon Delaware, and the other at 
Philadelphia for the province of Pennsylvania, Both remained 
under the proprietorship of Penn and the same governor acted 
for both. The Charter of Privileges was the constitution in 
both governments, and we shall see that the legislation of the 
two in regard to the management of elections was almost 
precisely identical.' Penn expressed a willingness to sur- 
render the provinces to the crown in 17 12, but on account of 
a fit of apoplexy he was unable to execute the necessary 
instruments.'^ He died in 171 8, leaving his province to three 
English noblemen to be by them held in trust and disposed 
of for the benefit of his heirs.'' After nine years of litiga- 
tion on the subject of this bequest it was decided that the 
grant was void, and the government, therefore, descended to 
his heirs, who administered it either in person or by deputy, 
until independence was declared.^ 

Besides the members of the legislature as already ex- 
plained, the frame of government drawn up in the early part 
of 1683 provided for the election by the freemen of a double 
number of sheriffs, justices and coroners. The persons ■ 
chosen were in each case to be presented to the governor 
and he could grant a commission to the one he preferred. 
If within three days he took no action, the person first 
named on the return received the office.^ The third para- 
graph of the Charter of Privileges of 1701 provided in like 
manner, for the election of a double number of sheriffs and 
coroners. •" The idea of giving the governor a partial check 
on the election of certain officers, by compelhng the electors 
to chose one or more alternates was undoubtedly borrowed 

' I Proud, Histo7'y of Pe^insylvania, 454. 

^2 Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 57. ^ Ibid., 105. 

* Gordon, History of Pennsylvania, 178. 

*i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 42; Section 16 of Frame. 

® I Proud, History of Petmsylvania, 444. 



\IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 33 

from Holland, where it had been for many years practiced 
in the choice of Burgomasters and Schepens,^ and, as we 
shall see, it was introduced in New Netherland.' 

§ 8. Maryland. Maryland was settled under a charter 
granted by Charles I. to Lord Baltimore in 1632. The 
proprietor was given the power of making laws with consent 
of the freeholders'' or freemen/ The first legislative as- 
sembly under this grant was held at St. Mary's on Febru- 
ary 1 6th, 1634-5, but all records of its proceedings have 
been lost.^ Probably all the freemen attended. The 
second assembly was called for the early part of 1637-8." 
Certain gentlemen were summoned to this meeting by 
writs specially addressed to them, and all freemen were 
ordered to attend in person or by proxy. For the latter 
purpose the freemen were permitted to assemble in their 
hundreds and elect " one, two or more able and suffic- 
ient men" to be "the deputies or burgesses for the said 
freemen, in their name and steed to advise and consult in 
the same manner as burgesses from an English borough."' 
All freemen not participating in the election of a burgess 
were required to send a proxy or attend in person. We find 

^ See I O'Callaghan, History of New Nefherland, 392. 

''■ For details of the methods used in electing these officers, see Pennsylvania 
Statutes, 4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed. Laws, 1742, 105; Delaware Statutes, 
12 Will. Ill, chap. 2ia; Franklin and Hall, ed. 1752, 29; Adams ed. 1797,63. 

^§8, "Liberi tenentes." 

* § 37, " Liberi homines." For a copy of charter in the original Latin, and also 
a translation, see Bacon's Laws (1765). 

^ See 2 Bozman, History of Maryland, ^Z, 34- 

^^ee Maryland Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, i; 2 Bozman, 
History of Maryland, 47; also Appendix A, to this work, for a copy of one of 
the writs; Bacon's Laws, ed. 1765, 7 Csecilius Lord Baltimore, chap, i, chap. 26. 
The pages in Bacon are not numbered. 

"^ Maryland Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 74, 8t, 82. 



2^ HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

even as late as 1642 that freemen not represented were fined 
twenty pounds of tobacco/ 

The reason why the freemen of Maryland were permitted 
to be represented by proxy and thus apparently act in con- 
travention to the well known rule of the common law which 
forbade the exercise of a public franchise by proxy, v/as that 
they were supposed to sit in their own right as did the Peers 
in the English House of Lords. Like the peers, therefore, 
they could be represented by proxy .^ It followed from 
this, and it was so held in an actual case, that freemen 
represented by proxy were exempt from arrest until a reas- 
onable time after the dissolution of the assembly, just as if 
they had actually occupied their seats.'' Of course this state 
of affairs did not continue after the population of the colony 
became relatively larger. The custom disappeared about 
1658. 

In 1689, because the Baltimore family adhered to the Ro- 
man faith, the British crown took the government into its 
own hands and did not restore it until 171 5. Then it was 
given to a member of the family who professed the Protes- 
tant religion.* Assemblies were called, however, at intervals 
throughout Maryland's colonial history, and the following 
quotation from a letter of Governor Sharpe to Lord Balti- 
more, under date of June 6th, 1754, shows that elections 
were held at intervals of three years : 

" I will beg leave to submit to your Lordship's Consideration 
whether it be impracticable or improper to fall on any method to 
put a Stop to such Perverseness as might generally be perceived in 
the proceedings of our Lower Houses of Assembly which is in great 
measure owing to the short Duration of our Sessions which termin- 

^ Maryland Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 169; also 2, 3, et seq. 

^ Bozman, History of Maryland, 48, 49. 

^ Maryland Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 8. 

* See Bacon's Laws. 



LV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



35 



ate at the end of 3 years : few Gent'^ will submit so frequently to 
the inconveniences that such as canvass for Seats in that House 
must necessarily subject themselves to ; by which means there are 
too many Instances of the lowest Persons at least men of small for- 
tunes no Soul & very mean Capacities appearing as Representatives 
of their respective Counties ; As there would be no want I apprehend 
of Gent" to appear as Candidates if the Drudgery of Electioneering 
was to return less frequently. I submit to your Lordships Wisdom 
whether there may be any impropriety (if a more agreeable Choice 
of Members should be made) in continuing the next assembly for 
more years than has been lately usual or customary.'" 

§ 9. Virginia. The first Virginia Charter (1606) placed 
the legislative povi^er in the hands of a council whose 
members were appointed by the crown.^ The second (1609) 
made the council a corporation'' to meet in England. The 
third and last charter (1611-12) provided for four great 
courts to be held annually in England for managing the affairs 
of the company.* By virtue of this charter, the treasurer, 
council and company in England issued on July 21st, 1621, 
an Ordinance and Constitution which placed the legisla- 
tive power in Virginia in the hands of a council of state and 
an assembly. The assembly was to consist of two bur- 
gesses to be elected by the inhabitants of each hundred, 
town or other particular plantation, and to be called " once 
a year and no oftener."" 

But this ordinance had been anticipated, for the first legis- 
lative assembly of Virginia met "in the church quire" at 
James City on July 30th, 1619. It was called by the gov- 
ernor. Sir George Yeardley, who " sente his summons all 

^ Maryland Archives ; i Correspondence Gov. Sharpe, 68. 

^ I Hening, Statutes at Large, 61, 68. ^ Ibid., 90. 

* Ibid., 103. 

^ Ibid., 1 10, et seq. See also Sir Francis Wyatt's commission as governor, i 
Hening, 113; 3 Hening, 236. 



o 5 HIS TOR V OF ELE C TIONS 

over the country," ordering two burgesses " out of each In- 
corporation and Plantation freely to be elected by the inhab- 
itants." This was without doubt the first election held on 
the American continent by men of Anglo-Saxon lineage 
under an organized government, and, on that account, is of 
especial importance.' A second assembly was called in 
November, 1621,^ but the first legislature whose records are 
preserved in Hening's Statutes at Large was that of 1623-4.^ 
The House of Burgesses (as the Virginia assembly was 
called) met with greater or less regularity until 1773.* Dur- 
ing Bacon's rebellion in 1676, a house of burgesses, elected 
by the insurgents, met and passed laws.^ Throughout the 
eighteenth century members were returned by the counties, 
cities and towns, and by the College of William and Mary.® 
According to a statute enacted in 1763,^ elections were to 
be triennial. 

§ 10. The Carolinas. Both North and South Carolina 
were included in the two charters under which the Carolina 
proprietors derived their rights. The first charter, that of 
1663, gave to the proprietors the fullest power of making 
laws " with the advice, assent, and approbation of the 
freemen of the said province or of the greater part of them 
or of their deputies." Laws could be made by the pro- 
prietors themselves until they exercised their power of 
calHng the freemen together.** The second charter (1665) 

'^ New York Historical Society Collections, 2d Series, vol. iii., 331 et seq., 1857, 
Stith, History of Virginia, 160. 

2 I Hening, 119. 3 j Hening. 

'' 8 Hening, 647. 5 3 Hening, 356. 

^ 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 7, 3 Hening, 236. In England it has long been a cus- 
tom for the two universities to return members to the House of Commons. See 
Statute, 9 Anne, chap. 5, 3dly. 

' 3 Geo. III., chap, i, § 3, 7 Hening, 519. 
^ I A^orth Carolina Colonial Records, 23. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 



37 



gave similar authority, as well as a limited ordinance 
power, whenever assemblies could not be called.' But 
the first charter speaks of the whole territory as one 
province,^ while the second grants power to divide the 
country into " counties, baronies and colonies with separate 
and distinct jurisdictions, liberties and privileges."^ The 
latter provision is of importance from our point of view, be- 
cause from it resulted the final division into two provinces, 
each with a separate, elective legislature. 

Before the Lords Proprietors received their charter, some 
settlers from New England had established themselves in the 
Carolina territory, and it may not be presumptuous to sup- 
pose that they chose their own officers.* In a "declaration 
and proposals to all that will plant in Carolina," issued by 
the proprietors in 1663, it was provided that the under- 
takers, before leaving for America, should select thirteen 
persons from among their number, and out of these a 
governor and six members of the council should be com- 
missioned. The successors of the governor were to be 
chosen from the council, while the number of the latter was 
to be completed from the six persons remaining. On the 
25th of March, preceding the expiration of the official terms 
of these magistrates, a new set of thirteen names was to 
be presented by the freeholders of the colony, or " by such 
persons as they shall constitute." By the tenth of the fol- 
lowing month, the new governor and council were to be 
commissioned from this list. The freeholders, in person or 
represented by two deputies from each parish, tribe or 
division, were to make laws which should be binding, unless 

^ I North Carolina Colonial Records, 104. 

^ 5th Paragraph, ibid., 23. 

^ 4th Paragraph, ibid., 104. 

* 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 70, et seq. 



28 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

abrogated by the proprietors within a year.^ Dr. Hawks ^ 
states that these proposals were put into force at Cape Fear 
but not in the settlement at Albemarle, which ultimately 
developed into North Carolina, If this is true, it is the 
only instance within the knowledge of the writer, in which 
the inhabitants of any of the colonies south of New Eng- 
land had any share in the choice of their governor, or 
of his council, except, perhaps during the twenty years 
when the Pennsylvania council was elected by the people, 
and the occasions on which, as we shall see, the same 
was done in South Carolina.' The proprietors received at 
about the same time a letter from certain " gentlemen from 
Barbadoes," who proposed settling in Carolina, and asked 
for permission to elect their own officers.* They were told 
that proposals which we have just* described would be fol- 
lov/ed.° 

In this same year, the proprietors issued a commission 
to Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia, empower- 
ing him to establish a government in Albemarle. He was 
to have a council which in the making of laws should act 
with the advice and consent of the freeholders or freemen, 
of the major part of their delegates or deputies." In the 
"concessions" of 1665,^ and in the instructions issued ten 
years later to the governor of Albemarle,^ it was provided 
that the inhabitants who were freemen or chief agents to 
others, should choose deputies to cooperate with a governor 
and council in making laws. As soon as the country was 

^ 1 North Caroli7ia Colonial Records, 43; Rivers, South Carolina, 335; 2 
Hawks, History of North Carolijia, 27. 
^ 2 History of North Carolitia, 144. 
•^ See also as to West Jersey, ante, p. 26. 

* I No7-t/i Carolina Colo?zial Records, 40. '^ Ibid., 58. 

^Ibid.,^o. ' Ibid., ^o,?,i. 

^Ibid., 166. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



39 



sufficiently settled, each district was to have a representative. 
In a book published in London in 1665, and describing the 
advantages of Carolina, it was stated that the inhabitants 
would have a governor and council, chosen from among 
themselves, as well as an annually elected assembly.^ The 
instructions of Governor Stephens in 1667, however, gave his 
council power to fill its own vacancies.'^ 

We shall at present confine ourselves to the history of the 
Albemarle settlement, and treat it with particular reference 
to the subject of elections. The time of the election of the 
first assembly is not positively known ; it has been placed as 
early as 1663.^ The legislature of 1670 is the first of which 
the records remain.* The assembly was elected under 
instructions to the Governor that writs should be sent to four 
precincts in Albemarle county, commanding each of them 
to elect four representatives. The assembly so formed was 
to choose four members of the council." As soon as the 
government just described had been established, the first 
edition of the celebrated constitution which the philosopher 
Locke had drawn up at the request of the proprietors was re- 
ceived. Four subsequent editions were sent over, and at- 
tempts were made to enforce it until after 1698. But these 
were futile, and it had little influence, either in the northern 
or in the southern part of the Carolinas, The constitution 
provided for a parliament to be composed of the proprietors 
or their deputies, the various ranks of the nobility, and rep- 
resentatives elected biennially by the freeholders of each 
precinct. As all the members were to sit in one room and 
each had a single vote, and as one of the chief reasons why 

^ I North Carolina Colonial Records, 157. 
''■Ibid., 164; C\i3Xxaex'a, Political Annals, 524. 

^ See I M.00X&, History of N'orth Carolina, 17; 2 'ii2iw\i'=,, History of North 
Carolina, 144, where the various authorities are collected and discussed. 
* I North Caroli7ia Colonial Records, 1S3. '° Ibid., 181, 235, "^^iZ- 



40 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

the constitution proved impracticable was the lack of a suffi- 
cient number of persons to form the nobility, it will readily 
be seen that the freeholders v/ould have a large share in the 
business of the parliament/ Constables and other minor of- 
ficers were to be annually elected.''' 

The governor of Albemarle was known as such until 1690, 
when the name North Carolina seems to have come into use;^ 
In 1691 Governor Ludwell "of Carolina" was empowered to 
order the election of five delegates from Albemarle county 
who should join with fifteen from the counties in the more 
southern settlements, to form one assembly for all Carolina.* 
However, this order was almost immediately rescinded, on 
account of the impracticability of having North Carolina send 
delegates to Charleston.'^ Until 171 2, there was but one 
governor for the entire province, though each part elected 
its own assembly." The last legislature under the rule of the 
proprietors was elected in 1728." 

The first assembly in North Carolina under royal authority 
met in April, 1731,^ and the last in November, 1774.' The 
authority for electing these assem.blies is found in the com- 
mission of Burrington, the first royal governor.'" He was told 
to follow the laws and usages of North Carolina on this sub- 
ject. It is thus presumed that the members of the assembly 
were to be elected biennially.'^ The separation between the 

^ Arts. 71, 72, 73, 75, etc.; i North Carolina Colonial Records, 199, et seq. 
^ Art. 91. 

^ "That part of our province that lies north and east of Cape Feare." i North 
Carolina Colonial Records, xxiv., 360. 

* Ibid., 377. 5 m^^^ 380. 

^ 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 493. " Ibid., 569. 

^ I Moore, History of North Carolina, 54. 

" 2 Martin, History of North Carolina, 328. '" Jan'y 15th, 1729-36. 

" 3 North Carolina Colonial Records, 68. For the law as to biennial assem- 
blies, see 2 North Caroli1^a Colonial Records, 213. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



41 



two Carolinas was not legally recognized until after they 
became royal provinces, though each of them had always 
elected its own assembly. 

The "gentlemen from Barbadoes " already mentioned, 
settled near Cape Fear under Governor Yeamans,' in 1665, 
at a spot where a New England settlement had once stood.''' 
It is said that an attempt was made to introduce the Locke 
constitutions here, but however that may be, the colony 
gradually dwindled away, so that in 1690 there was not a 
settler left.^ 

In 1669 the proprietors issued a commission to Governor 
Sayle for the country south and west of Cape Fear."* He 
was instructed to call together the freemen as soon as he 
reached Port Royal and cause them to elect four persons to 
join with him and his council in making laws. He was also 
to require the freeholders to choose twenty persons to form a 
parliament ; the other requirements of the first issue of Locke's 
constitution being dispensed with for the time being. These 
instructions appear to have been carried into efifect, not at 
Port - Royal, but at a new settlement on the Ashley river, 
near the present site of Charleston." The instructions of 
Governor Yeamans, two years later, contained similar pro- 
visions " and required a biennial parliament.'' 

In 1682 the proprietors ordered ten members of the bien- 
nial parliament to be chosen at " Charlestowne in Berkly 
county," and ten at London in Colleton county.* The latter 
had so few inhabitants that this apportionment was considered 

^ Chalmers, Political Annals, 523. 

^ I North Carolina Colo7iial Records, 36; see ibid., 95, for Yeamans' commis- 
sion. 

^ 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 455, 6; Rivers, South Carolina, 71. 

* Rivers, South Carolina, 340. 

'"> Ibid., 95, 97. ^ Ibid., 366. 

''Ibid., 379. Election of twenty members took place in April, 1672, ibid., 109. 

® Ibird., 406. 



42 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



unfair, and at the election of 1683 no attention was paid to 
the order. ^ About this time a vacancy in the office of gov- 
ernor was filled by vote of the council, and as some of the 
members of this body were elected by the parliament, the 
people had an indirect voice in the matter.^ Governor 
Ludv/ell's instructions of 1 691, as already mentioned, gave 
five of the twenty seats in the parliament to delegates 
from North Carolina, each of the three southern counties 
being allowed the same number.^ When this order was 
rescinded, Berkeley county was given seven members, Col- 
leton the same number and the remaining one, six.* The ad- 
mission of Craven county to a share in the election of dele- 
gates to the parliament is of importance, because this portion 
of the country was inhabited almost exclusively by Hugue- 
nots, who had previously had no share in the making of laws.^ 
In 1695 the freemen were called together in general as- 
sembly to decide about the number of representatives. 
Twenty was the number fixed upon for Berkeley county and 
ten for Colleton, while Craven was omitted altogether." 
Elections after this time do not seem to have been carried on 
• in a very orderly manner.^ The apportionment of delegates 
to the commons house of assembly, as the popular branch 
of the legislature was called, appears to have furnished a 
subject of contention, and the people were Vv^ell pleased 
when an act of 1716 provided that the parish instead of the 
county should be the election district.' The privilege of 

^ Rivers, South Carolina, 136. 2 /^/^_^ i^j^ 

^ I North Carolina Colonial Records, 371. *• Ibid., 380; Rivers, 160. 

" The journals of the Parliament show that Huguenot members were returned 
and that they swore allegiance to William III. Rivers, 176. 

" Rivers, 181, 453, et seq. About this time the first mention of the name South 
Carolina is to be found. Act 1696, 2 Cooper, 124. 

'Rivers, 453, 462, 196, 206. 

^ Act no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683, see in particular the preamble; Rivers, 287, 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



43 



elections was always jealously guarded by the settlers of 
South Carolina; and when, in 1719,* the proprietors re- 
pealed the last mentioned statute, the people rose in revolt, 
elected a governor and appealed to the king/ The crown 
sent over a governor in 1721, and his commission authorized 
him to call an assembly.' This royal government was only 
provisional, pending a settlement with the Lords Proprietors. 
The latter, with the exception of Lord Carteret, sold out 
their interest in both North and South Carolina, and the 
purchase was confirmed by act of Parliament.'' The undi- 
vided one-eighth interest of Carteret, Earl of Granville, was 
set apart by royal charter in 1744, but as the right of call- 
ing assemblies to be elected by the freemen was expressly 
reserved, this does not concern us.* Except for a period of 
two years, from 1745 to 1747,^ when annual assemblies were 
required, it seems to have been the law that elections 
must be held every two years," although from 1721 to 1745 
the duration of an assembly was fixed at three years.'' The 
dissolution of the last royal legislature took place on Sep- 
tember 15th, 1775.^ 

§ II. Georgia. The government of Georgia was vested 
by royal charter of 1732, in the hands of a council 
whose legal title was the "Trustees for establishing the 
colony of Georgia in America." The trustees filled va- 
cancies among their own number, but their power was 

^ Rivers, 292 to 310. ^ i Ramsay, Ilisfory of South Carolina, 95. 

^ Statute, 2 Geo. II., chap. 34, I Cooper, 60. 

* 4 N'orth Carolina Colonial Records, 655. 

^ Act i74Si no. 730, 3 Cooper, 656. 

^Act 1747, no. 746, 3 Cooper, 692; Locke's Constitution, Art. 75; Act 1694, 
Trotts' Laws, 36; Act no. 108, 2 Cooper, 80. 

' Act 1745, no. 556, 3 Cooper, 135. 

^ I Ramsay, History of South Carolina, 249. 



. . HI ST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

limited to twenty-one years.^ These trustees appointed all 
the officers of the colony, whether judicial or otherwise.' 
In 1750, the affairs of the colony were in a bad way and 
the trustees, hoping to provide a remedy, proposed that each 
town, village or district should depute one delegate if it had 
ten families or more, and two if it had thirty, to attend an 
assembly held annually at Savannah. As the whole power 
of making laws was in the hands of the trustees, this assembly 
could have power only to "propose, debate and represent" 
their grievances.'' By virtue of this resolution, the assembly 
met on January 15th, 1751, elected a speaker, and on the 
following Sunday listened to a sermon " suitable for the 
occasion." They transacted no business beyond drawing 
up bills of grievances,^ and as the trustees surrendered their 
charter in June, 1752, no more assemblies were elected, under 
the authorit}^ of the trust. "^ The crown appointed a governor 
and council, and, as was generally the case, gave the governor 

^ Hotchkiss, Digest of Laws of Georgia, 20, etseq.; i Stevens, History of Georgia, 
476, et seq. 

^ I Stevens, History of Georgia, chap. vii. 

'^ 2, ■l^Iifi'^tt^s of Common Council, 235; I Stevens, History of Georgia, 245, f^ 
seq. The qualifications to be possessed by these delegates ware so remarkable 
and therefore furnish so good an example of the absurd theories which the home 
governments were fond of attempting to put into practice in America, that they 
are inserted in this connection. From June, 1751, to June, 1753, no person could 
be a deputy unless he had " a hundred mulberry trees planted and properly fenced 
upon every fifty acres he possessed." After 1753, a deputy must be a person who 
had strictly conformed to the limitation of the number of negro slaves in propor- 
tion to his white servants, who had at least one female in his family instructed in 
the art of reehng silk, and who yearly produced fifteen pounds of silk upon fifty 
acres of land, and the like quantity upon every fifty acres he possessed. " But as 
the Trustees are desirous of seeing some immediate good effects from this as- 
sembly, and are sensible that at present there are not many in the province who 
may have the necessary qualifications," the members of the first assembly were 
wisely exempted from the operation of these rules. — 3 Minutes of Cotnvion Coun- 
cil, 235; I Stevens, History of Georgia, 245, et seq. 

* I Stevens, History of Georgia, 248, et seq. ^ Ibid., 258. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 45 

authority to call an assembly. Writs were sent out and the 
first election held in the latter part of 1754.^ The members 
of the Commons house of assembly continued tb be chosen 
at intervals until 1780. In that year writs were sent to all 
the provost marshals, but those whose territory was in the 
hands of the rebels were permitted to proA/e that fact by 
aflfidavits, instead of returning a member." 

' I Stevens, History of Georgia, 381-393. 
'^ 2 Stevens, History of Georgia, 318. 



CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE. 

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ELECTORS. 

In the early part of the history of each colony the quali- 
fications required of electors were neither numerous nor well 
defined. On account of the small number of inhabitants, it 
was at first hardly necessary, and perhaps not advisable, to 
limit the elective franchise to any particular class of individ- 
uals. Consequently, in the summons that was sent out by 
the first royal governor or proprietor, the " freeholders " or 
the " freemen," of a certain district were ordered to elect a 
certain number of deputies or representatives, as the case 
might be.^ In Virginia, on the contrary, the " inhabitants " 
were to elect the first house of burgesses."* In the colonies 
under royal rule the qualifications of voters were very fre- 
quently fixed by the commissions of the governors. But in 
the instructions, as well as in the commissions of the early 
governors, the definition of a voter rarely went beyond the 
single word " freeholder," and the fixing of a more precise 
meaning to this general term seems to have been left for legis- 
lative action. In the preceding chapter care has been taken to 
mention in many instances the authority from the crown 

1 See for example in Maryland " freemen" (Act of 1637-8, Maryland Aj-chives, 
I Assembly, i, 27, 28, 87, 88, 114, 121, etc., etc.); in Pennsylvania "free- 
holders," writ of 1682 (i 'PxqmA, History of Pennsylvania, 234); also in New 
York, (^Introduction to Journal Legislative Council, xiv.) and in New Jersey (l 
New Jersey Archives, 56). These writs are published in appendix A of this work. 

^i Hening, 1 10, 113. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



47 



through which the qualification of an elector was originally 
derived/ 

Thus far we have been treating of the elective franchise in 
the colonies at a time when they were most closely under 
royal rule. But in New England, while she retained her in- 
dependence, the case was different, and the right of voting 
for officers was inherent in all freemen and incidental to 
membership in the corporation. Thus in the four colonies of 
Plymouth, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut 
the word freemen had a special significance, which was 
taken away when the two former became a royal province 
by the charter of 1691, and which remained in the two 
latter until the revolution. A freeman did not become such, 
unless he possessed certain prescribed qualifications, and 
until he had been approved, admitted and sworn, in a 
manner which will be described in a subsequent section of 
the present chapter. When a man had been admitted to 
the freedom of one of these colonies, his position was ana- 
logous to that of a freeman in a city or borough, and as such 
he became entitled fo the exercise of the elective franchise. 
That the privilege of voting in the elections of the province 
was regarded as a right, vesting inherently in the freemen of 
a corporation, is shown by the New York Charter of Lib- 
erties and Privileges, and by the election laws of the same 
province, which contained a clause exempting freemen of 
the cities of Albany and New York from their operation.' 

^ See references to governors' commissions and instructions mentioned in the 
previous chapter. New Hampshire (i Provincial Papers, 379) is an example of 
a province where the governor and his council were originally given full authority 
to fix the qualifications of an elector, while New Jersey under her first royal gov- 
ernor in 1702, had the qualifications definitely prescribed (Learning and Spicer, 
623). Massachusetts as a royal province had the definition of an elector fixed by 
the charter of 1691 (Poore, Constitutions, 949). 

^ See for instance, Charter of Liberties and Privileges (2 Brodhead, History of 
the State of Nfew York, 642) as passed in 1 683, and again in 1691 (Bradford's Zawj 



.g HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

The fact that quahfications could be imposed on candi- 
dates for the freedom of a colony enabled Rhode Island^ 
and Connecticut 2 to ultimately require the possession of a 
freehold as a prerequisite to the exercise of the suffrage. 
In all of these colonies^ freemen could, under certain 
conditions, be deprived of their freedom, and incidentally 
of their rights as voters. In Rhode Island a law passed 
in 1724 provided that the privilege of electing depu- 
ties should not be limited to freemen of the colony, to the 
exclusion of freemen of the town." This seems to indicate 
a distinction, in Rhode Island at least, between the freedom of 
the colony and that of a particular town. 

The terra freeman occurs also in the early history of some 

ed. 1710, i); II Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 10, Van Schaack's Laws, 28; 4 A^ew 
York Colonial Documents, 127. That this was also true with respect to 
boroughs in England, see Statute 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15; Cox, Antient Parlia- 
mentary Elections, chap, viii and ix. 

That the New England colonies regarded themselves as corporations is shown 
by Laws, 1636, 11 Plymouth Colony Records, 7, Brigham, 37; Laws, 1658, 
ibid., 107, 113; Second Fundamental, Book of General Laws, 1671, ibid., 
241, 258. Massachusetts was a "company" by its charter (i Massachusetts 
Colonial Records, 10, 12,) "freemen of this jurisdiction" to elect officers {Laws, 
ed. 1660, 28; 1814, 105); "freedom of the commonwealth," (ed. 1660, 33; 
ed. 1 8 14, 117; I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 87); " freedom of this body 
politick" {ibid., 2 Massachtisetts Colonial Records, 208). In Rhode Island "free- 
men of colony" (i Rhode Island Colottial Records, 236); "free inhabitants of 
colony" {ibid., 429). The second charter (2 Rhode Island Colo7iial Records, 8,) 
provided for election of officers out of the company by freemen. In New Haven 
the term "free burgesses" (i New Haven Colonial Records, 20, 35, 46, etc.~) 
seems to have been used as an equivalent to "freemen" {ibid., 1 12); in Hart- 
ford, "freemen of this company" (i Cottnecticut Colonial Records, 417); in 
Connecticut, " freemen of this corporation" {Session Laws, 40). These colonies 
possessed the elements of a corporation such as a common seal and perpetual 
succession. 

' 9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730, 131. 2 Session Laws, 40. 

^Plymouth, Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Book of General Laws, 1671, ibid., 
258; Q,OT\Tx&Q!i\cvX, Session Laws, 40; Massachusetts, 4 Colonial Records, pt. ii, 
143; Rhode Island, I Colonial Records, 125. 

* 4 Rhode Lsland Colonial Records, 338, 



IN THE AM ERICA X COLONIES. 



49 



of the southern colonies. But as these were either proprietary 
or directly under royal rule, there is reason to believe that the -^ 
word was used in its literal significance oi free 7nan. Thus 
a Virginia statute, in limiting the elective franchise to free- 
holders, spoke in its preamble of the election of burgesses 
having been " by the votes of all persons who haveing served 
their tyme are ffreemen of this country.'" Before this date ^'^ 
(1670), all free men had possessed the privilege of electing 
burgesses.'^ On account of there being no evidence of any- 
thing like the technical freedom which existed, as has already 
been shown, in the New England colonies and in the Eng- 
lish municipal corporations, it seems reasonable to infer that 
the word freeman had no technical meaning here, although 
the qualifying phrase "of this country" gives color to an 
opposite belief. In the Carolina charters, and commissions, 
the word fj^eemen also occurs^ in its literal meaning, although 
the contrast between the words freeholders and freemen in 
Locke's constitution, seems to imply a technical signifi- 
cance.* As only the former could vote, the question does 
not particularly concern us. 

Penn's frame of government and the laws agreed upon in 
England speak of " freemen of the said province " who were to J^ 
be capable of electing representatives or of being elected to 
the provincial council or assembly.^ The charter of Phila- 
delphia speaks of persons who were free denizens of the 
province being admitted as freemen of the city;** but this 
is the technical freedom of a corporation on which depended 
certain rights not connected with the suffrage. As the 
statutes and charters of this province and of Delaware fix 

' 22 Car. II, 2 Hening, 280. ^ See i Hening, 333, 403; 2 Hening, 356. 

^ See I No7'th Carolina Colonial Records, 23,80, 104, 166, 377; Rivers, South 
Carolina, Appendix, 347. 

* I Cooper, 43, especially art. 94. * i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37, 23- 

* Miller's Zaz£/j, 10, II. 



k 



r-o HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

the qualifications required of voters with great exactness, the 
use of this term is not so important from our point of view. 

In the Maryland charter, which was drawn up in Latin, 
the terms liberi tenentes^ and liberi homines'^ occur in such 
a connection as to lead to the inference that only free- 
holders could make laws.^ But there seems to be a plain 
distinction between the words. All freeholders are freemen, 
but a freeman could not possibly be a freeholder, unless he 
owned a freehold in land. However, when the question came 
up for discussion, the charter was interpreted in such a manner 
as to destroy all distinction between the two terms and give 
the -^ox^ freemen, in Maryland at least, a technical meaning. 
At one of the early assemblies when all persons were re- 
quired to attend either in person or by proxy (which could 
be done by joining in the election of a representative), and 
a summons was sent to all delinquents, a " certain Thomas 
Weston being called, pleaded he was no freeman because he 
had no land or certain dwelling here, &c., but being put to 
the question it was voted that he was a Freeman, and as such 
bound to his appearance by himself or proxie, whereupon 
he took place in the house."* Subsequent Maryland laws 
gave the franchise to freemen with a certain amount of 
property in freehold or in personalty .'^ That even the states- 
men of Rhode Island were not always perfectly clear as to 
the meaning of the term freeman is shown by the doubts 
which arose when the question of the interpretation of this 
word in the charter of 1664 came up." 

In the preceding pages I have attempted to give some 

§ 8- ■ '■* § 37> see Bacon's Laws. 

^ See Bozman, History of Maryland, 48, note; McMahon, Histo7y of Mary- 
land, 444. 

^ Maryland Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 170. 
^ Maryland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60. 
® 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 29. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 5 I 

idea of the indefinite character which marked the quaHfica- 
tions required of electors in the early history of each colony. 
Gradually by means of legislative action, additional and 
more specific qualifications were imposed. The following 
sections will, therefore, aim to classify the tests required of 
electors at dififerent times in the various colonies. Every 
statutory requirement which has come within the knowledge 
of the author has been included, although all of them may 
not have been in actual operation, Such, for instance, are 
those prescribed by constitutions like that of Locke or of 
the East Jersey proprietors which never went into effect, 
as well as those contained in statutes repealed by au- 
thority of the crown or of the proprietors. The qualifica- 
tions imposed by the latter class of statutes were gener- 
ally in force, however, until abrogated by the proper au- 
thority. Only by comparison of dates and examination of 
the references will it be possible for the reader to ascertain 
precisely what was the qualification required from a voter in 
any particular province at a given time. Indeed, the subject 
is not always free from doubt, because a new statute did not 
always in terms repeal a preceding one. A law might also 
fall into disuse through non-user, and we have the reports 
of very few concrete cases where questions involving the 
suffrage were decided by competent authority. 

§ I. Ethnic. Race qualifications were not prescribed by 
statute, except in the southern colonies. I know of no law 
that would prevent an Indian or a negro, if otherwise quali- 
fied, from voting in the northern colonies. It will be noted 
that the following provisions are all of a comparatively late 
date. 

Thus, in Virginia' and North Carolina'' no negro, mulatto, 

^3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 7, 7 Hening, 519. 

'^ Laivs 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 



r2 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

or Indian could vote, while in the former colony this was 
declared to be so, even if such persons were freeholders. 
North Carolina also disfranchised Mustees.^ In South Caro- 
lina'-^ and in Georgia^ the franchise was expressly restricted 
to white men. Notwithstanding these laws, negroes were 
sometimes permitted to vote even in South Carolina. A 
petition to the Lords Proprietors complains of this abuse 
being practiced in Berkeley county in 1701 and 1703,* when 
"free Negroes were received and taken for as good Electors 
as the best freeholders in the province." 

§ 2. Political. Qualifications of this sort were rarely pre- 
scribed by statute. In Pennsylvania,* voters were required 
to be natural born subjects of England ; in Delaware,'* of 
Great Britain. Persons naturalized in England or in Penn- 
sylvania could vote in either colony, while Delaware per- 
mitted persons naturalized within her own borders to vote.^ 
Massachusetts** after 1664 required freemen to be Eng- 



^ Laws 1715. This law as printed in 2 North Ca7'olina Colonial Records, 
213, omits the word Mustees, which, as we have learned through the kindness 
of Mr. J. C. Birdsong, Librarian of the State of North Carolina, is to be found in 
the original act. A Mustee (or Mestee) is the offspring of a white and a quad- 
roon {^CenUiry Dictionajy, vol.iv.). 

'•^ Act 1716, no. 365, § XX, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1717, no. 373, § i, 3 Cooper, 2; 
Act 1719, no. 394, § iv, 3 Cooper, 50; Act 1721, no. 446, § iii, 3 Cooper, 135; 
Act 1745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 657. 

^Act June 9th, 1761. 

* This is given in Rivers, Soulh Carolifta, Appendix, 453, et seq. See also peti- 
tion to the English House of Lords, ibid., 462. 

^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742,67. 

«7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, § 2, Franklin and Hall, ed. 1752, 118; Adams, New- 
castle, ed. 1797, 147. 

'See also act of 1700, chap. 28, referred to in Penn's Charter of Privileges, 
Recorded A., Vol. I., 15, published in Appendix B of the present work, 

84 Massachtiselts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 167. Supplement to Laws, ed, 
1660, Act 1664, 3; ed, 1814, 117, 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



53 



lishmen/ while in North Carohna there was the pecuHar pro- 
vision that " no person inhabitant of this province, born out 
of the allegiance of his majesty and not made free," could 
vote.' The Pennsylvania frame of government of 1696 de- 
clared that electors must be free denizens of the government' 
and thus anticipated the action of the English House of Com- 
mons which held in 1698 that no alien, (not being a denizen or 
naturalized) , had any right to vote for members of parliament,* 

In this connection it may well be asked what was the 
position of the Huguenots in South Carolina. Bancroft' 
speaks of an act passed in 1696," by which the suffrage was 
given to all except Roman Catholics. How far this is true 
the writer has been unable to ascertain. In 1691, however. 
Governor Ludwell, acting under instructions from the pro- 
prietors, called an assembly in which six members were to 
be returned from Craven county, which was settled almost 
entirely by Huguenots. The journals of the assembly show 
that the members returned from this district took the oath 
of allegiance to William the Third." The petition men- 
tioned in the preceding section complains that in 1703 
"almost every Frenchman in Craven and Berkeley counties 
came down to elect " and was allowed to vote.^ 

§ 3. Moral. Moral qualifications were insisted on only in 
New England, though Virginia denied the franchise to any 
" convict or person convicted in Great Britain or Ireland 

^ Also New Hampshire, i Ne%u Hamplnre P. P., 396, but repealed. 
"^ Laws 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 
'* I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 49. 

* 12 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 367. 

* 3 History of United States, 17, 18. 

''This is probably the act mentioned by Cooper ("vol. ii, p. 130) and of which 
it is stated that the original cannot be found. Although diligent inquiry has been 
made, the writer has not been able to secure a copy of this act. 

"Rivers, South Carolina, 160, 176, 181. ^ Ibid., 196, 462, 453, et seq. 



c 4 HIS TOR V OF ELECTIONS 

during the term for which he is transported," even though 
such person might be a freeholder/ In the New England 
colonies moral delinquencies had a double effect. Evidence 
of a positive character was at one time necessary before a 
person could be admitted to the freedom of the colony, 
while the absence of correctness in moral behavior would, in 
certain cases, lead to the suspension of a freeman from his 
privileges or even to his total disfranchisement. Under 
conditions of the former class, Plymouth, refused to admit 
as a freeman " any opposer of the good and wholsome 
laws of this colonic," or " such as refuse to do the coun- 
try service, being called thereunto."^ Some years later a 
would-be freeman needed the testimony of his neighbors 
that he was of " sober and peaceable conversation."^ Con- 
necticut required a certificate as to this, and as to hon- 
est and civil conversation as well, from a majority of the 
freemen in the town where the candidate lived.* A later act 
made necessary a certificate from the selectmen of the town 
where the candidate resided, to the effect that he (the candi- 
date) was of a " quiet and peaceable behaviour and civil 
conversation." That the selectmen might exercise due care 
in signing such certificates, they were liable to a fine of 
£^ in case the candidate turned out otherwise than was 
represented.^ After 1664 Massachusetts required a certifi- 
cate from the minister at the candidate's place of residence 
to the effect that he was not " vitious " in his life.^ Rhode 
Island admitted as freemen all persons properly qualified in 
other respects, if they were " of civil conversation who ac- 

1 3 Geo. Ill, § 7, 7 Hening, 519. 2 Laws, 1658, Brigham, 113. 

^ Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § 5, Brigham, 258. 

* I Connecticut Colonial Records, 389. 

' Session Laws, 40; Laws, ed. Cambridge, 1673, 26. 

^4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 167. 



IiV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



55 



knowledged and are obedient to the civil magistrate." ^ This, 
as well as other provisions of a similar nature first required 
in the New England colonies about 1665, was probably due 
to the royal commission sent over at that time, and of which 
more will be said in the next section." 

In order to lose the freedom of Plymouth freemen must 
speak contemptuously of the laws of the general court or of 
the court itself, or be adjudged by the court to be " grossly 
scandalouse, or notoriously vitious, as common lyars, drunk- 
ards, sucarers or doth manifestly appear to be disaffected to 
this government." ^ The reason given for making this enact- 
ment was that "some corrupt members may creep into the 
best and purest societies." Connecticut was less severe, and 
a "scandalous" freeman could be disfranchised only till 
"good behaviour shall cause restoration of the privilege."* 
The code of 1650," expressed the law on this point in the 
following forcible language : " It is ordered by this Courte 
and decreed, that if any person within these Libberties haue 
beene or shall be fyned or whipped for any scandalous 
offence, hee shall not bee admitted after such time to haue 
any voate in Towne or Commonwealth, nor to serue in the 
Jury, vntill the Courte shall manifest theire satisfaction." 
The Cambridge edition of the laws, as published in 1673, 
gave the court of assistants power to disfranchise freemen 
for scandalous walking.® In Massachusetts disfranchisement 
was authorized as an additional penalty upon conviction of 

^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112; 16 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 1744, 4. 

^ A similar rule as to moral qualifications was enacted in New Hampshire in 
1680, but soon repealed, (i Provincial Papers, T,<)b). 

'^ Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § 6, Brig- 
ham, 258. 

^Session Laws, 40. ^ Title Voates, 1 Connecticut Colonial Records, 559. 

^ P. 26, title, Freemen ; or this was done by superior court, Session Laws, 81. 



eg HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

fornication or any "shamefull and vitious crime."' There 
was also a law that no one who was detected and convicted 
in any court of "any evill carriage agnt ye gouernments or 
churches, it being intended to be imediately doun" should 
be allowed to vote until he was restored to liberty by the 
court that convicted him.'^ 

§ 4. Religions. In Massachusetts and also in the New 
Haven colony freemen were required to be church members. 
This was first ordered in the former colony as early as 1631. 
"To the end that the body of the freemen maybe preserved 
of honest and good men, it is ordered," ran the statute, "that 
henceforth no man shall be admitted to the freedom of the 
commonwealth, but such as are members of some of the 
churches within the limits of this jurisdiction."'^ In 1660, 
the general court defined the meaning of this enactment to 
be that " no man whosoever shall be admitted to the freedom 
of this body politick but such as are members of some 
church of Christ and in full communion."^ That this law 
enabled many persons to escape the liability of serving in an 
ofhcial capacity was shown in 1643 by the court ordering that 
all members of churches refusing to take their freedom should 
be summarily dealt with.^ This law was ineffectual, and 
four years later it was enacted that all church members 
should be liable for public service, and fined for delinquency 
in that respect, just as if they had actually taken their free- 
dom.® This law did not, however, at least in terms, give 
these non-church members power to vote for general ofhcers. 
How fully this principle of church membership was carried 

^ 4 Massachusetts Colonial Reco7'ds, pt. ii, 562. 

^3 Massachusetts Colotiial Records, no. 

^ Laws, ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117; i Massachusetts Colonial Records,?,-]. 

* Ibid.; 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. i, 420. 

^2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 138. 

^ Ibid., 20S; La7vs,ed. 1660, 2^; ed. 1814, 117. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. c^j 

out was curiously shown by the answer given to a query 
from Falmouth as to the best way in which the number 
of freemen could be increased. " It is the best expedient," 
said the general court, "to obteine the ends desired that 
those parts furnish themselues w'^ an able, pious & ortho- 
dox minister & comend that to them,"^ 

The measures taken by Massachusetts to preserve the 
"honest and good" character of her freemen seem to have 
attracted the attention of the English government, and in 
1662 a letter was addressed to the general court on this sub- 
ject. The colony was requested to permit all persons with 
competent estates, not vicious in their conversation, and 
" orthodoxe in religion (though of different persuasions con- 
cerning church government)", to vote. In reply, the court 
declared the law of 163 1 in reference to church member- 
ship to be repealed, and proceeded to lay down a series of 
qualifications, embodying the requirements of his Majesty's 
letter, as an alternative to the old rule of "full communion 
with some church among us." These alternative qualifica- 
tions included a certificate signed by the minister of the 
place where a would-be freeman resided, to the effect that 
he was orthodox in religion and not vicious in his life. As 
will appear later, these qualifications were possessed by so 
few persons, that the practical effect of the new law was 
to leave the religious qualifications of Massachusetts voters 
where they were before." 

Soon after this, the royal commission above referred to 
made an investigation of the governments of the New Eng- 
land colonies, and, among other things, endeavored to 
secure a certain amount of uniformity in the qualifications 
for electors. Their instructions authorized them to see that 

^ 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 452 (1670). 

' Ibi(^., pt. ii, 117, 165, 166, 177; Laws, ed. 1660, 33; ed. 1814, 117. 



r g HI ST OR Y OF ELE CTIONS 

"persons of good and honest conversations, who haue lieued 
long there may enjoy all the priuledges .... as to choose 
.... into places of government .... that differences of 
opinion doe not lessen their charity to each other, since char- 
ity is a fundamentall in religion."^ In pursuance of their mis- 
sion the commissioners wrote to the general court of Massa- 
chusetts. In reply they received a copy of the law of 1664, 
already mentioned. This was unsatisfactory, and so the 
Commission addressed the following letter to the colony : 

" You haue so tentered the king's qualliffications as in making 
him only who paieth ten shillings to a single rate to be of compe- 
tent estate, that when the king shall be enformd, as the trueth is, 
that not one church member in an hundred payes so much & yt in 
a toune of an hundred inhabitants, scarse three such men are to be 
found, wee feare that the king will rather finde himself deluded than 
satisfied by your late act."^ 

The court did not, however, pay any attention to this re- 
monstrance, and finally the commissioners requested that 
the phrase " none be admitted freemen but such as are 
members of some of the churches w^ in the limitts of this 
jurisdiction, may be explained, and comphend such as are 
members of y^ church of England." The writer has not 
been able to find that even this was done.'^ Non-church 
members, however, could still vote under the law of 1662, 
though they were required to pass through a long period 
of probation.* Under the Massachusetts charter of 1691 
there was no rule limiting the exercise of the suffrage to 
church members. 

New Haven also insisted upon all freemen being church 
members. This was decided at the first meeting of the 

' 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 192. 

^ 1665, ibid., 205. 3 4 Ide7n, 212. 

■* 1673, ibid., 562; 5 Massachusetts Colonial Reco7-ds, 385, repealed in 1 682-3. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



59 



New Haven planters in 1639,' and again provided for by the 
constitution of 1643.'' Milford had let in six free burgesses 
who were not members of "approved churches," and after 
some hesitation the general court seems to have allowed 
these six to retain their freedom upon being cautioned, but 
they were not allowed to vote for magistrates, " neither per- 
sonally nor by proxi."^ They might act in town-business 
"wherein the combination was not interested," and might 
vote for deputies to be sent to the general court, provided 
deputies were always church members. The royal commis- 
sion of 1665 seems to have addressed the governments of 
both Rhode Island and Connecticut on the subject of elec- 
toral qualifications. In the former colony a law was passed 
requiring a profession of Christianity,* though Roman Cath- 
olics were debarred ; while in Connecticut the request of the 
commissioners was noted in the records in language similar 
to that used in the first letter to Massachusetts, and ac- 
companied only by the simple remark, "our order judged 
consonant."^ New Plymouth at about the same time, and 
possibly because of this royal interference required freemen 
to be orthodox in the fundamentals of religion." 

In the South, Locke's constitution provided that "no 
man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina .... that 
doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and 
solemnly to be worshiped."^ In South Carolina a statute 

^ \ Neiv Haven Colonial Records, 15. ''■Ibid., 1 12. 

^ Ibid., 110. These six free burgesses of Milford were specially exempted in 
the provisions of the constitution which required church membership as a qualifi- 
cation for voters. Ibid., 112. 

^2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 110-113; 16 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 
1 744, 4. See p. 63, post. 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 439. 

'^ Book of General Laws, i67i,chap. 5, § 5, Brigham, 258. 

^ Art. 94, I Cooper, South Carolina Laws, 43. 



6o HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

enacted in 1716 required voters to profess the Christian re- 
ligion.' 

The foregoing pages include all the qualifications of a 
positive character, so far as the writer has been able to as- 
certain. Persons professing certain religions were in some 
cases denied the privilege of voting. For instance, Quakejs 
were strictly debarred from becoming freemen in Massachu- 
setts,^ and in Plymouth.^ In Rhode Island, the principles of 
religious toleration were practiced, and Quakers were ad- 
mitted as freemen. The commissioners of the United Colo- 
nies tried to prevent this/ but their efforts were futile. This 
is shown by the king's commissioners, who reported in 1665 
that all religions, even Quakers and Generalists, were ad- 
mitted to this colony.^ 

Although Quakers were not in terms disfranchised in the 
other colonies, their scruples against taking oaths often de- 
barred them from voting. In order to permit them to take 
part in elections, clauses enabling Quakers and others to 
afifirm or declare the effect of the oaths required of voters^' 
were frequently inserted in the statutes. " Ranters or any 
such corrupt persons," " manifest opposers of the true wor- 
ship of God," "manifest encurragers " of Quakers " soe 

1 Act 1716, no. 365, § xx; 2 Cooper, 683. 

''■ i, Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 88; Lazas, ed. 1814, 107. 

^ Laws, 1658, Brigham, 113. * i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 374 etseq. 

^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 128. 

^So, for example, New York ("Quakers or one of Unitas Fratrum," 11 Geo. 
Ill, chap. 1490, Van Schaack's Laws, 620) ; Rhode Island (20 Geo. II, Franklin 
ed., 1752, 13); New Jersey (12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Allinson's Laws, 69, Nevill's 
Laws, 142); Pennsylvania (4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1752, 67); Dela- 
ware (7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklm and Hall ed., 1752, no, Adams ed., 1797, 
147) ; Maryland (here Quakers were declared liable to affirm as to all oaths to be 
taken by others, but they were not to be debarred for not swearing: 1724, 10 
Charles, Lord Baltimore, chap. 7, Bacon's Lazus) ; Virginia (ii Will. Ill, chap. 2, 
3 Hening, 172 ; 10 Geo. II, chap. 2, § vii,4 Hening, 475); South Carolina (Act 
1704, no. 227, § V, 2 Cooper, 249). 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 6 1 

judged by the court," could not be freemen in Plymouth, 
although this colony did not in so many words require church 
membership.' " Apostates from the fundamentals of reli- 
gion" could be disfranchised.' 

In England the right of Quakers to vote upon declaring the 
efifect of the elector's oath on their affirmation was recognized 
by the statute of lo Anne, chap. 23, § 8. In 1690, however, 
the House of Commons Jiad decided that the refusal to take 
the oath rendered Quakers incapable of voting for knights of 
the shire.^ Just before yielding to the royal commands, under 
the pretense of permitting non-church members to become 
freemen, Massachusetts, in furtherance of her laudable desire 
to preserve the "good and honest character" of her freemen, 
had passed a law which recounted the dangers she had found 
by experience to exist within her boundaries from those of her 
inhabitants who were " enemies to all government, civil and 
ecclesiastical, who will not yield obedience to authority, but 
make it much of their religion to be in opposition thereto," 
and who carried out their designs by electing wicked per- 
sons, and so forth. In consequence of all these evils, it was 
enacted, that "all persons, quakers or others, which refuse to 
attend upon the public worship of God established here ; that 
all such persons, whether freemen or others, acting as afore- 
said" should be incapable of voting "during their obstinate 
persistency in such wicked ways and courses, and until cer- 
tificate be given of their reformation," This law, it may be 
remarked, was not repealed * while the colonial charter re- 
mained in force. 

It seems to have been the rule in most of the American col- 
onies that Roman Catholics could not vote. They were spe- 

"^ Laws, 1658, Brigham, 1 13. ^ Book of Getter al Laws, 1671, Brigham, 258. 

' 10 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Commons, 396. 

*i663, \ Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 88; Laws, ed. 1814, 105. 



52 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

cifically disfranchised by the statutes of New York ' and 
Maryland.'^ In these two governments persons suspected of 
popish behefs were required, before being permitted to vote, 
to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and to sign 
the test and association. Popish recusants were disfranchised 
in New York'^ and Virginia/ An early law of New Hamp- 
shire, which was repealed immediately after it was enacted, 
required freemen to be ProtestaQts." In the absence of 
further information the writer does not feel justified in 
asserting that Roman Catholics were debarred from voting 
in all the colonies. The laws just cited were enacted dur- 
ing the eighteenth century, and were confined to four pro- 
vinces. The provisions in regard to church membership 
in Massachusetts during the government under the charter of 
1628, would doubtless have excluded Roman Catholics. 
On the other hand, the religion of the Baltimores and the 
general character of their government would seem to justify 
the belief that before the royal regime commenced in 1689 
papists could vote in Maryland. On general principles it 
would seem that every man could vote, unless he was specifi- 
cally debarred by statute. Possibly there never were enough 
Roman Catholics outside of the colonies mentioned to make 
special legislative action necessary. Nothing can be as- 
sumed from the analogy of England, for the writer has there 
found no law depriving papists of the suffrage. They could 
not, it is true, hold office,'* possess, inherit or purchase 

1 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, Van Schaack's Laws, 40. See also Leisler's illegal 
election in New York City, " by Protestant freeholders" (3 New York Colonial 
Docunie7its, 675), which took place ten years before the statute of 13 Will. III. 

2 3 Charles, Lord Baltimore, chap, i, § 3 (1718) Bacon's Laws; "Profest Papists." 
■^ 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, § I, Van Schaack's Laivs, 40. 

*" Recusants convict," 11 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; "recusant," 3 
Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 7, 7 Hening, 519. 

^ I New Hampshii-e Provincial Papers, 396. 

^ Statute 30 Car. II, Stat. 2, chap. i. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. ^t^ 

land/ and they were forbidden the king's or queen's pres- 
ence;'^ but it does not necessarily follow from those facts 
that they could not vote for members of the House of Com- 
mons. They might not have been permitted to exercise their 
suffrage if they had tried, but that does not mean that they 
were disfranchised. 

There has been a great deal of discussion in regard to the 
statute of Rhode Island which debarred Roman Catholics. 
The first printed edition of the laws, published in 17 19, con- 
tained the phrase "all men professing Christianity though of 
differing judgements in religious affairs (yRoman Catholicks 
only excepted.)'''^ The marginal note states that this law was 
passed in 16 Charles II. As a matter of fact neither the 
original copy of the statute enacted at that time, nor the 
letter from the King of England, in consequence of which 
that law was passed, contains the words italicised in the above 
extract.* If we believe that the inhabitants of Rhode Island 
acted consistently with their second charter, there can be no 
doubt that they would not have dared to pass a law abridging 
the exercise of a particular religion. It is therefore gener- 
ally believed, at the present time, that the words in regard 
to religious tests were interpolated at some later date, possi- 
bly not till 1 7 19 when they first appear and then perhaps 
with the hope of currying favor with the home government. 
The clause in regard to Roman Catholics again appeared 
in the editions and digests published in 1730, 1745 and 
1767. As the law was not repealed until 1783, there can 
be no doubt that persons professing this religion could not 
vote during the greater part of the eighteenth century. At 

^11, 12, 13 Will. Ill, chap. 4, § 4; I Geo. I, Stat. 2, chap. 55. 

"^ 30 Car. II, Stat. 2, chap. 2, ^ Page 3. 

* 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, i lo-i 13. 



64 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



any rate the founders of the colony seem to be exculpated 
from the charge of inconsistency.' 

The writer has found in two colonies evidence tending to 
prove that Jews could not legally vote. The first authority 
is the decision of the New York assembly, when it set- 
tled the contested election case of Philipse vs. Van Home, 
in 1737. The language employed by the house in rendering 
its decision, indicates that Jews were debarred from voting 
in England also.'^ The petition of the South Carolina as- 
semblymen, which has already been referred to, complains 
that Jews were illegally permitted to vote.^ The absence of 
further mention of the Jewish race is perhaps sufficiently 
accounted for by the conjecture that its numbers were few 
in the American colonies. 

§ 5. Age. It may be stated as a general proposition that 
electors were required to be twenty-one years of age.* That 

' The whole subject is treated exhaustively in S. S. Rider, An inquiry coitcern- 
ingthe origiji of the clause in the laws of Rhode Island {ijig-i'/Sj) disfranchisitig 
Roman Catholics (1889). W. E. Foster, Esq., Librarian of the Providence Pub- 
lic Library, furnishes the following additional references on the subject : Chalmers, 
Political Annals, 2f6 et seq.; I Arnold, Rhode Island, 488 et seq.; Walsh, Appeal 
from the Judgments of Great Britain, ^ya; Proceedings of the Rhode Island His- 
to7-ical Society, 1872-3, 64; 2 Douglass, Swmnary, 83; 3 Narrative and Critical 
Histoiy of Atnerica, 379-80; 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 36 note. 

'■^ " Resolved that it not appearing to this House that Persons of the Jewish 
Religion have a right to be admitted to Vote for Parliament men in Great Brit- 
ain, it is the unanimous Opinion of this House that they ought not to be admitted 
to vote for Representatives in this colony. Die Veneris, Sept. 23, 1737. i Jour- 
nalN'ew York Assembly, 712; 6 New York Colonial Documents, 56. 

^Rivers, South Carolina, 206, 453 etseq., 462. 

* Plymouth: Zaroj, 1671, Brigham, 258; Connecticut: i Connecticut Colonial 
Records, 2)^-2; 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 11 ; Session Laws, \o\ New York : 
1 1 Will, in, chap. 74, § 9, Van Schaack's Laivs, 28, " No infant under twenty- 
one shall elect;" Pennsylvania: Frame of Government, 1696, i Pennsylvania 
Colonial Records, ^g, Lazvs 1700, chap. 28, referred to in Charter of Privileges; 
chap. 129, 4 Anne, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; Delaware: 7 Geo. II, § 2, Franklin and 
Hall, ed. 1752, 118; Adams, 1797, 147; Virginia: " infants under 21 " disquali- 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



65 



minors did sometimes vote, though illegally, appears from 
the account of an eye-witness of an election in North Carolina 
about 1708.' In England by the statute of 7 & 8 William 
III, chap. 25, § 8, minors were forbidden to vote for members 
of Parliament. To this rule there are very few exceptions. 
The act of Massachusetts which provided a substitute for 
the one single qualification of church membership de- 
clared that freemen must be at least twenty-four years old.'^ 
This was copied in an early New Hampshire law.'' In 
Rhode Island the only statement in regard to an age 
quali^cation was that made in 1665 in reply to the letter of 
the royal commission. After mentioning an oath to be 
taken by freemen, and stating that if they did not take it, 
they could not vote for officers, the records go on to say 
that the oath was taken by all housekeepers aged eighteen 
or more. This does not, however, necessarily mean that 
persons of that age could vote.^ Plymouth had a peculiar 
law that "in reference to military concernments — noe single 
persons under twenty years of age either children or serv- 
ants shall voate as to that accompt."^ 

§ 6. Sexual. There seems to have been no women's rights 
party in the colonies ; it was thusnot found necessary to ex- 
pressly debar women from the privilege of voting, except in 
Virginia. In that colony it was enacted that " no woman, 
sole or covert," even though a freeholder, should have a 

fied, 7 Geo. Ill, chap. I, § 7, 7 Hening, 519; INorth Carolina: 33 Geo. II, 
chap. I, § 4, Davis ed., 1773, 247; South Carolina: Act 1716, no. 365, § 20, 
2 Cooper, 683; Act 1745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 657; Georgia: Act June 9th, 1761. 

'Pollock's Letter Book, i N'orth Carolina Colonial Records, 696; 2 Hawks, 
History of North Carolina, 511. 

^4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 117, 166; ed. Laws, 1814, I17. 

•'' I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396. 

* 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112, 

^ Laws, 1667, Brigham, 151, 



56 HIS TOR V OF ELE C TIONS 

voice in the election of burgesses.' In New England the 
restriction of the suffrage to freemen of a colony would 
necessarily debar women. In a statute prescribing the 
qualification of voters from the town of Wilmington, North 
Carolina, the word man was several times used in describ- 
ing an elector.^ 

§ 7. Residential. In the early history of each colony 
there was, as has already been explained, very little definite- 
ness in regard to the qualification of voters. The warrants or 
the royal commissions by virtue of which the earlier elections 
were held are full of such expressions as the "freeholders of 
the province,"'^ "the freeholders in thy bailiwick,"* "free- 
holders of your county," ° " inhabitants," "^ or "freemen in- 
habiting" a certain place.' Such phrases, vague as they 
may seem, undoubtedly imply residence in an elector. 
The writer conceives it to be true, though he cannot show a 
great deal of authority, that residence within the government, 
province or territory, was generally required,* 

' II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, 7 Hening, 519. 
^ Act 1740, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 114. 
^ 3 North Carolina Colonial Records, 68. 
^ Pennsylvania, 1682, i Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 234, 
"N. Y., 1683, Introdiiciion to yournal of Legislative Council, xiv, 
* Virginia, 1621, i Hening, no; North Carolina, 1667, l North Carolina 
Colonial Records, 80, 

"^ Maryland Archives, I Assembly, 27, 28. 

^ In support of this view may be cited the expressions : those that " do cohabit 
within this jurisdiction," as expressed in the first American constitution, that of 
Hartford in 1638 (i Connecticut Colonial Records, 21); the limitation to those 
" cohabiting upon the island" at Newport, before the formation of the Confed- 
eracy (i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 125), and "inhabitants within the col- 
ony," afterward (Frankhn ed., 1730, i) ; " every planter and inhabitant dwelling 
and residing within the Province" (East Jersey Concessions, 1683, Learning and 
Spicer, 153); "inhabitants, freeholders or proprietors resident upon the said 
province" (West Jersey Concessions, chap. 32, Learning and Spicer, 385; also 
Pennsylvania Zawj, 1682, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, t,']'); "freemen of 



/.V THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



67 



In four colonies the length of residence within the govern- 
ment was defined. This was two years in Pennsylvania/ and 
Delaware,' and six months in Georgia.^ In North Carolina, 
a full year's residence in the government was at one time 
necessary,* but before 1734 this was reduced to six months' 
residence within the precinct." Other provinces had more 
specific provisions on this subject. Thus, in Rhode Island, 
no person could vote except in the town where he lived,** and 
New Jersey under the royal government, required a residence 
of one whole year in the county, city, or town,' where the voter 
was polled. In South Carolina the necessity for a period of 
residence as a qualification for voters seems to have been fully 
appreciated. In 1693, the proprietors disallowed an act giv- 
ing the privilege of electing representatives to persons worth 
£10, One of the reasons for their action was because "these 
act not mentioning how long any person worth ten pounds 
must have been an Inhabitant of the Country before he be 
admitted to vote for mem.bers of the assembly, it is so loose 
that by this act, all the Pyrates that were in the Shipp 
that had been pilundering on the Red Sea had been quali- 
fied to vote for representatives, which being of dangerous 

this province" (^Alaiyland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60) ; " settled inhabitants in 
this jurisdiction" as used in Massachusetts (4 Alassachusetts Colonial Records, '^\.. 
ii, 117, 167; Laivs ed., 1814, 117 [also in Plymouth, Laws, 1667, Brigham, 
151]) and New Hampshire (i New Hatnpshire Provincial Papers, 396), 

^ Frame of Government of 1696, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 149; Laws 
1700, chap. 28, referred to in Charter of Privileges; 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin 
ed., 1742, 67. 

'■^7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia; Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams, 1797, 147. 

* Act June 9th, 1761. 

^ Lazvs, 1715, chap. 10; 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 

^8 Geo. II, chap. 2; 17 Geo. II, chap. 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 
For the first act see appendix B. 

^Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

'12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 



58 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

consequence to the Inhabitants we have dissented."^ In 
1704 a personal residence in the county and precinct 
for three months next preceding the date of the writs for 
the election was required,'^ possibly with a view of remedy- 
ing the abuses at a recent election, when it is said, strangers 
and sailors had been allowed to vote.'^ Twelve years later 
this was replaced by six months' residence in the province and 
parish,* and seafaring and other transient men, not owning 
freeholds or liable to pay taxes on personal property, were 
debarred from voting. In 1721 the time of residence was 
finally fixed at one year within the county.^ In New York 
and Virginia the laws appear to be silent as to general resi- 
dence qualifications, but persons voting in New York City 
and Albany in their capacity of freemen must have resided 
there three months," while in Williamsburg, Virginia, holders 
of the town franchise must have had an actual residence of 
twelve months.' The former provision was probably aimed 
at the practice, which seems to have existed, of giving free- 
doms to sailors and other non-residents, in order to let them 
vote for assemblymen.* In some colonies the elector voted 
solely by virtue of his freehold, and in such cases residence 
was not considered of any importance. Thus New Hamp- 
shire passed a law enabling property holders, though non- 

^ April loth, 1693, Rivers, South Caro/ma, Appendix, 437. This is probably the 
act mentioned in 2 Cooper, 73, act no. 78, of which it is stated the original is lost; 
this act was, however, to be temporary. 

^Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 149. 

^ Rivers, Sotdh Carolina, Appendix, 462, 453 et seq. 

*Act 1716, no. 365, §xx, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1717, no. 373, §§ i, ii, 3 Cooper, 2. 

^ Act 1721, no. 446, § iii, 3 Cooper, 135, 

6 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 10, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 

^ 15 Geo. II, chap. 26, §11,5 Honing, 204. The act of 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hen- 
ing, 236, required an elector to be a resident of the county in which he voted. 

^ Oi New York Colonial Documents, 127-9. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



69 



residents, to vote,i and in New York a complaint against 
the sheriffs for conspiring to hold all the elections on the 
same day, so as to prevent freeholders having estates in 
several counties from voting in each, shows that it was a 
common practice for non-resident freeholders to exercise 
the elective franchise.'^ In 1737 this was decided by the 
legislature in the contested election case of Philipse vs. Van 
Home to be a legal usage.^ The writer has found no trace 
of a system of plural voting in any other colony. 

In England the question of residence was treated as early 
as 141 3, by the statute of i Henry V, chap i, (3). This 
enacted that " the knights and esquires and others which 
shall be choosers of these knights of the shires, be also resi- 
dent within the same shires in manner and form as afore- 
said ; " that is, "at the day of the date of the writ of the 
summ.ons of the parliament."* The laws requiring electors 
to reside within the counties in which their freeholds were 
situated, were repealed in 1774.* 

§ 8. Property. A. the county franchise. The property 
qualification in the American colonies is a subject of great 
importance. The qualifications mentioned in the preced- 
ing sections were for the most part confined to particular 
portions of the continent. For example, the religious 

^ I Geo. II, chap. 107, § 2; Fowle ed., 1771, 166. 

^4 New York Colonial Documents, 127-9. 

^ 6 Neiv York Colonial Documents, 56. 

"•Troward, Elections, London, 1790, 5; Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elec- 
tions, 109, quotes this statute and uses the ^oxA^chosen instead oi choosers ; Gneist, 
History of the English Constitution, vol. ii, chap. 25, 5 (p. 35), says that by this 
act electors were to be resident in the county. This seems more reasonable as the 
word chosen would merely repeat another clause of the same act in slightly different 
language. The question was, however, settled in favor of residence within the 
county where the freehold lay, by the statutes of 8 Henry VI, chap. 7, and 10 
Henry VI, chap. 2. 

^ Statute 14 Geo. Ill, chap. 58. 



^o 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



and moral qualifications, which were predominant during 
the seventeenth century, were practically limited to the 
colonies most directly under Puritan influence. When 
Massachusetts and Plymouth lost their independent status 
by their union under the charter of 1691 property replaced 
religion as the main test of a man's right to vote. In 
every province, whether royal or proprietary, there was 
introduced, beginning in the latter part of the seventeenth 
century, some sort of property qualification, and the tend- 
ency during the middle of the eighteenth century, was 
toward a certain amount of uniformity in this respect 
throughout the colonies. In Rhode Island there were, as 
we shall see, violent fluctuations in the property qualifica- 
tion, and at one time the enormous sum of four hundred 
pounds or twenty pounds a year, was required. 

In considering the history of the property qualification in 
this country it will be well to examine at the outset the 
development in the oldest of the colonies, namely, Virginia. 
By the constitution and ordinance of 1621, as issued by the 
treasurer and company in England, all inhabitants of the 
colony were to have a vote in the choice of burgesses.^ 
For upwards of thirty years this was the rule, until in 1655 
a law was passed limiting the franchise to "all housekeepers, 
whether ffreeholders, leaseholders or otherwise tenants." "' 
But in less than a year this statute was repealed, because, 
said the house of burgesses, "we conceive it something 
hard and unagreeable to reason that any persons shall 
pay equall taxes and yet have no votes in elections."^ 
It was not long, however, before the harshness of this rule 
was lost sight of, and the house of burgesses in 1670 dis- 

^ Art. iv, I Hening, 112. 

^5-6 Commonwealth, Actvii, i Hening, 411. 
I •' 6 Commonwealth^ Act xvi, i Hening, 403. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 7 1 

covered that the voting " of all persons, who haveing served 
their tyme are ffremen of this country, who haveing little 
interest in the country doe oftner make tumults at the 
election to the disturbance of his majesties peace, then by 
their discretions in their votes provide for the conservasion 
thereof, by making choyce of persons fitly quahfyed for so 
greate a trust." Besides this, they remembered that " the 
lawes of England grant a voice in such election only to 
such as by their estates, real or personall have interest 
enough to tye them to the endeavour of the publique 
good." Therefore, they enacted that only " fTreeholders 
and house keepers who are answerable to the publique for 
the levies, shall hereafter have a voice in the election of any 
burgess in this country."' That the people did not look 
with unmixed satisfaction upon this limitation of the suffrage 
is shown by the action of the assembly called during 
Bacon's revolt in 1676, which repealed the law of 22 Charles 
II, and admitted all freemen to a share in the choice of 
burgesses.^ When the rebellion was put down this act was 
repealed, and as far as Virginia was concerned, non-free- 
holders were permanently deprived of the privilege of voting. 
Turning now to England, we find that the history of the 
county franchise, which corresponds to what we are at pres- 
ent considering in the American colonies, was similar to the 
development in Virginia. We have the authority of that 
learned scholar, William Prynne, for the statement that origi- 
nally " every inhabitant and commoner in each county had 
a voyce in the election of knights whether he were freeholder 
or not, or had a freehold only of one penny, sixpence or 
twelvepence by the year."'' But early in the fifteenth cen- 
tury the famous statutes of 8 Henry VI, chap. 7, and 10 
Henry VI, chap. 2,* were enacted, and in accordance with 

^ 22 Car. II, Act iii, 2 Hening, 220. - 2 Hening, 425. 

'^ Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva, 187. * I430 and 1432. 



p7 2 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIOXS 

their provisions the elective franchise was hmited to holders 
of "free land or tenement to the value of forty shillings by 
the year, at the least, above all charges." Notwithstanding 
the statement in the preamble of the Virginia statute just 
quoted, a freehold was necessary to qualify county electors 
in England all through the colonial period, and no amount 
of personal property would serve as a substitute. 

In America the forty shilling freehold franchise was recog- 
nized in Massachusetts by the charter' of 1691, as well as in 
Rhode Island,^ and Connecticut.' In all of these colonies, 
however, the forty shilling freehold was merely an 
alternative qualification. In New England, as in Virginia, 
there was no property qualification required at first, and 
the writer is of the opinion that with the possible exception 
of Connecticut its introduction was due solely to the 
interference of the Crown, already mentioned under the 
subject of religious qualifications.* In support of this 
view it can be shown that upon receipt of the royal 
mandate that electors should be "men of competent es- 
tates"^ some sort of property qualification was adopted or 
declared by the general courts of the four colonies affected. 
Thus Plymouth'' allowed holders of " twenty pounds rate- 
able estate, at the least, in the government" to be made free- 
men, and Massachusetts embodied in the qualifications 
offered as an alternative to church membership, a clause 
giving the suffrage to freeholders, " for their own proper es- 
tate (without heads of persons), rateable to the country in a 
single country rate, after the usual manner of valuation in the 

'i Ames and Goodell, ii. 

'4 Geo. I, Fianklin ed., 1730, 131 ; Kail, Code, 1767, i:\'CiQ Elections, 78. 

^ Session Laws, 40. ■> See p. 57 ante. 

^4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 166; 2 Rhode Island Colonial Rec- 
ords, 1 10; I Connecticut Colonial Records, i,2)9. 

^ Book of General Laws, 1671, chap. 5, § 5, Brigham, 258. 



LV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



n 



place where they hve to the full value of ten shillings," and 
who were householders as well.' When these two colonies 
were united the qualification of voters was fixed by the 
charter in the following language : 

"Noe Freeholder or other person shall have a vote in the Eleccon 
of Members to serve in any Greate and General Court or Assembly 
to be held as aforesaid who at the time of such Eleccon shall not 
have an estate of freehold in Land within Our said Province or Terri- 
tory to the value of Forty Shillings per Annu at the least, or other 
estate to the value of Forty pounds Sterl'."^ 

In accordance with the proposals of the crown, Rhode Is- 
land in 1665 enacted simply that electors should be men of 
" competent estates."'^ The property qualification remained 
thus indefinite until 1 723 when it was decided that a " freeman 
must be a freeholder of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments 
in such towns where he shall be admitted free, of the value 
of one hundred pounds or to the value of 40 shillings per a.'" 
In 1730 the requirement was raised to two hundred pounds 
or ten pounds a year," and in 1747 it was still further increased 
to four hundred pounds or twenty pounds a year." In 1767 
the real estate of a freeman must be worth forty pounds or 

^ d, Massachusetts Colonial Records, ^"i. ii, 117, 167; Laws, ed. 1814, 117. 

^ I Ames and Goodell, 11. There has been considerable doubt as to whether 
forty or fifty pounds is the correct version of the last clause. It appears from the 
report of the Attorney General and the acceptance of the Colonial agents, as con- 
tained in the minutes of the Plantations committee of the Privy Council that fifty 
is correct, but it is said that the copy of the charter sent to Massschusetts con- 
tained the word forty. The Boston government seems to have acted on the latter 
assumption and the home government on the former, for it disallowed several laws 
because they contained the word fort)'*, which was the qualification in New York 
and in Rhode Island. In the printed editions of the acts, the word forty is men- 
tioned three times, and fifty occurs four times. See i Ames and Goodell, 249, 
282,315,363. 

" 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112. +9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730, 131. 

5 3 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1 730, 206. ^ 20 Geo. II., Franklin ed., 1 752, 1 3. 



74 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



else must bring in a yearly rental of forty shillings.^ 
Rhode Island was the only American colony which per- 
mitted a man to vote by virtue of his birth. This franchise 
Vv'as given in 1/23 to the eldest son of a freeman," and it 
seems to have existed for a number of years. If a freeman, 
who was such by virtue of his being the eldest son of a free- 
holder qualified to vote, died with issue, the second son of 
the freeholder was not to be made a freeman because of his 
father's freehold.^ This franchise was doubtless derived from 
the English rule permitting the heir apparent of a peer or of 
a freeman to vote.* 

In 1658, just before the royal interference, Connecticut had 
prescribed a qualification of thirty pounds proper personal 
estate, (those who had held ofhce were exempt from this quali- 
fication,) and in 1662 had changed this to "twenty pounds es- 
tate beside the person in the list of estate," so that the request 
of the royal commissioners was dismissed with the words " our 
order judged consonant."^ If the quaUfication of 1662 was 
meant to be realty — and in the light of a subsequent enact- 
ment,^ the writer believes it was not — the " order " of Connec- 
ticut could hardly be "consonant." The Cambridge edition 
of the Laws of Connecticut speaks of the property qualifica- 
tions of freemen as being "willed by our Royal Soveraign " 
to be " twenty pownd Estate in Housing or Land, besides 
their -personal Estate in the Common List."^ In 1675 a 
statute provided that in addition to " these other qualifications 

1 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

^ 9 Geo. I, Franklin ed., 1730,131; also 209, 252; Hall's Code, 1767, Title 
Elections, 78. 

^ Hall's Code, Title Elections, 78. 

*See Troward, Elections, 76, 167; Statutes 9 Anne, chap. 5; 3 Geo. HI, 
chap. 15. 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 331, 389, 439. 

^2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 253. "Title Freemen, 26. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



75 



expressed in the former law" a freeman must have in the" List 
of Estates ten pownd estate in land beside their personal es- 
tate.'" In 1689'" a freehold estate of forty shillings in county 
pay was prescribed, while the session laws finally placed the 
property qualification at a " freehold estate to the value of 
forty shillings per an., or forty pounds personal estate."^ 
The first provision in regard to property qualifications in 
New Hampshire is found in a law passed by the first Assem- 
bly, but soon repealed. This simply provided for " a ratable 
estate of twenty pounds without heads of persons."^ An act 
of 1 69 1 probably copied the Massachusetts charter when it 
required voters to be freeholders of the value of forty pounds 
a year, or worth fifty pounds in personal estate." After 1729 
only freeholders with an estate of fifty pounds in the town, parish 
or precinct in which they voted could elect representatives." 
In New York the first Charter "of Liberties declared that 
all freeholders in the province had a voice in the eleccion of 
representatives, and a freeholder was defined to be " every 
one who is so understood according to the laws of England."^ 
The second charter explained that a freeholder was a person 
who had forty shillings a year in freehold.** A later general 
act limited the county franchise to persons holding " Land 
or Tenements, improved to the Value of Forty pounds in 
Freehold, free from all encumbrances."^ 

When we come to consider the more southern colonies we 

' 2 Connectictit Colonial Records, 253. The royal proposals as expressed to 
Massachusetts certainly required voters to be freeholders, and the quotation just 
given from the Cambridge edition of the laws bears out this view. The language 
of the law of 1675 seems to imply that no estate in land had been required before 
this time. So, on the whole, the meaning of the earlier enactments seems doubtful. 

^4 Connecticut Colonial Reco7-ds, 11. '^Session Laws, 40. 

* 1680, I Provincial Papers, 396. ^ li Will. Ill, 3 Provincial Papers, 216. 

^ I Geo. Ill, chap. 107, Fowle ed., 1761, 142; ed. 1771, 166. 

^ 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 659. ^ Bradford ed., 17 10, i. 

'^ II Will. Ill, chap. 74, § I, Van Schaaclc's Laivs, 28. 



1^ 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



find that the general criterion for determining the amount of 
the real estate quaHfication was not so much its value as its 
area. So in East Jersey,' Pennsylvania,^ Delaware,^ Mary- 
land,* North Carolina,^ and Georgia,® fifty acres was the re- 
quired amount of land. Of these fifty acres East Jersey re- 
quired ten acres to be cultivated ; in Pennsylvania the 
same number must have been " seated and cleared," though 
after 1700 twelve acres must be "cleared and improved;"'' 
while Delaware required the v/hole tract of fifty to be cleared.^ 
In Pennsylvania the voter, instead of having land, might be 
worth "fifty pounds lawful money of the government, clear 
estate.'"* In Delaware,'" and also in Maryland, a personal es- 
tate of forty pounds value would enfranchise an elector." The 
laws made by Penn in England offered the privilege of voting 
to every purchaser of one hundred acres of land or upwards, 
his heirs and assigns ; to every person paying his passage 
and taking up one hundred acres of land at a penny an acre 
and putting ten of them under cultivation ; and also to every 

' Concessions, 1683, iii, Learning and Spicer, 153, I New Jersey Archives, 397. 

''^ Frame of Government, 1696, I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, \(^. 

■^ 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams, 1797, 147. 

*Act 1678, Alaryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly, 60; 4 
Anne, chap. 35; 1715, chap. 42, Baskett ed.; 1723, 131. 

^8 Geo. II, chap. 2; 17 Geo. II, chap. i,§ iii; Davis and Swann ed., 1752,177. 

•^ Act June 9th, 1761. 

'1700, chap. 28, referred to in charter of 1701; 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin 
ed., 1742, 67. 

^7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall, 1752, 1 18; Adams, 147. 

^ Frame of Government, 1696, l Pejinsylvania Colonial Records, 49; 1700, 
chap. 28, referred to in Charter of Privileges, 1701, i Proud, History of Pennsyl- 
vania, 444, "Lawful money of this province;" 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 
1742, 67; 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 

i°7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, § 2, Franklin and Hall ed., 118; Adams, 1797, 147. 

'^Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly, 60; 2 
Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, § 3, Bacon's Laws. 



I.V 'J'HE AMERICAN COLO.MES. 



77 



person who had been a servant or a bondsman and was free 
by his service and had taken up his fifty acres of land and 
cultivated ten of them.' In New Jersey under the royal 
government, a freeholder having one hundred acres of land 
in his own right, or worth fifty pounds current money of'the 
province in real and personal estate, could vote.'^ 

Virginia had limited the elective franchise to freeholders, 
in 1670,'^ but in 1736 on account of the practice of conveying 
"small and inconsiderable parcels of land upon feigned 
considerations," it was found necessary to define a free- 
hold. Accordingly the amount of land to be possessed 
by an elector was fixed at one hundred acres, if uninhabited, 
or twenty-five acres with a house and a plantation.' In case 
the uninhabited estate lay in two or more counties the 
owner could vote in the county where the greater part was 
situated, though that part might not amount in itself to a 
hundred acres. Some years afterward it was enacted that 
fifty unsettled acres would qualify a freeholder. There must 
have been a house twelve feet square on the settled planta- 
tion of twenty-five acres, and if the estate was in several 
counties the elector could vote only in that county in which 
the house was situated.^ All sorts of property qualifications 
seem to have been required at different times in South Caro- 
lina. Locke's constitution provided that only freeholders 
could vote and that these must possess fifty acres.^ In 1692 
an act was passed permitting all persons who would swear 
that they were worth ten pounds to vote for members of the 
assembly. The proprietors disallowed this, because they 

^ I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37. 

^ 7 Anne, chap. 4, § i, Nevill's Laws, 7; AUinson's Laws, 6. " Current money 
of Great Britain," 8 Geo. Ill, AUinson's Imws, 306. 
•^ 22 Car. II, Act iii, 2 Honing, 28c. See page 71 ante. 
* 10 Geo. II, chap. 2, § 11, 4 Hening, 475. 
^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 4, 7 Hening, 519. * Art 72, i Cooper, 43. 



78 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



were of opinion that only freeholders should be permitted to 
vote.' In 1704 the qualification of an elector was a freehold 
of fifty acres or else ten pounds in money, goods, chattels or 
rents.^ Twelve years afterwards personal property to the 
value of thirty pounds " current money of this province " 
would qualify a voter,'^ In 171 7 the franchise was given to 
holders of fifty acres in land, and to persons liable to pay 
taxes for the sum of fifty pounds/ This personal qualifica- 
tion was changed in 1721 to a tax of twenty shillings for the 
year of the election or the year preceding.* In 1745 a free- 
hold estate in a settled plantation or three hundred acres 
unsettled for which taxes had been paid the previous year 
was demanded,*^ while in 1759 only one hundred acres were 
required, or in lieu of this, the payment of a tax of ten 
shillings " proclamation money"' during the preceding year. 
The rule requiring the payment of taxes on the land for the 
previous year was probably borrowed from England where 
it had been made a condition precedent to the exercise of 
the forty shilling franchise.'' 

At the beginning of this section it was noted that the 
connty franchise in England was confined to freeholders. 
Governor Berkeley of Virginia was instructed in 1676 to 
" take care that the members of the assembly be elected 
only by freeholders as being more agreeable to the custom 
of England to which you are as nigh as conveniently you 
can to conform yourselfe,"" We have seen that this had 

' Rivers, History of South Carolina, Appendix 437. There was an act on this 
subject in 1696-7, of which the writer has been unable to procure a copy. See 2 
Cooper, 130. 

'^Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 249. -^ Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 

* Act 1717, no. 373, 3 Cooper, 2. ^ Act 1721, no.446, 3 Cooper, 135. 

«Act 1745, no. 730, 2 Cooper, 657. ^ 33 Geo. II, no. 885, 4 Cooper, 98. 

8 10 Anne, chap. 23; 18 Geo. II, chap. 18; 20 Geo. Ill, chap. 17. 
^ 2 Hening, 425. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



79 



been done in Virginia even before he arrived. We have also 
found that but four other colonies, viz. : Rhode Island, New 
York, North Carolina and Georgia, confined the elective fran- 
chise strictly to freeholders. In two of the constitutions which 
never had a real influence on the colonies for which they were 
framed, vis. : that of East Jersey and that of the Carolinas, 
we have seen that strict freehold suffrage was provided for. 
New Hampshire ultimately seems to have debarred all but 
freeholders. Everywhere else, though freeholders could al- 
v/ays, vote if they pleased, there was some provision permit- 
ting the holder of a certain amount of property, personal in 
its nature and not always of great value, to cast a vote 
counting for just as much as that of the largest freeholder. 
Though this was the sign of a democratic tendency opposed 
to the landed interests which predominated in England, the 
British crown seems to have permitted it, despite the protests 
that were raised. For example, when Lord Cornbury took 
possession of New Jersey, he was instructed by the royal 
government, at the special request of the retiring proprie- 
tors, to have the members of the assembly from the counties 
chosen by freeholders.' Some years after his arrival an act 
was passed which after stating that the instructions of Lord 
Cornbury were inconvenient, proceeded to lay down a 
money qualification for electors.'' This action drew forth a 
spirited protest from the late proprietors. 

"For certainly," they petitioned the Crown, "those persons are 
fittest to be intrusted with choosing and being Legislators who have 
a fixed valuable and permanent interest in Lands, and must stand 
and fall with their country ; but money is an uncertain Interest and 
if it be admitted a quaUfication equal to Land, an assembly may be 
packed of Strangers and Beggars who will have little regard to the 

^ Learning and Spicer, 599, 623. 

^ 7 Anne, chap. 4, I ; Nevill's lazvs, 7, Allinson's Laws, 6. 



3o HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

Good of the Country from whence they can remove at Pleasure and 
may oppress the Landed Man with heavy Taxes."' 

This provision, they wrote to the Lords of Trade, was con- 
trary to the instructions of the governor, 

" Which was intended to be a standing and unalterable part of the 
constitution as most agreeable to the constitution of England where 
the electors of knights by the counties must have a certain fixed free- 
hold — but the alteration now made was intended to put the election 
of representatives into the meanest of the people, who being impa 
tient of any superior will never fail to choose such from among them- 
selves, as may oppress and destroy our rights." '•* 

That the objectionable qualification was not repealed is 
shown by an act passed in 1767,'^ which reaffirmed the rule 
laid down by the statute of 7 Anne. 

I ) Class of Estate Required. The question as to what 
class of estate would be necessary to qualify an elector seems 
to have arisen only in those colonies which limited the county 
franchise strictly to freeholders. The end sought by the 
rules that were adopted appears to have been to prevent one 
and the same estate from qualifying two different persons. 
Thus in Rhode Island an estate in fee simple, fee tail, or 
an estate in reversion which qualified no other person, or an 
estate for one's own life, was sufficient. An admission as 
freeman in right of a wife's dower, or an estate in reversion 
which qualified another person, or a house on lands not be- 
longing in fee simple, fee tail, or for life, but belonging to 
another, was null and void.* The other colonies were more 
liberal. Thus in New York^ and Virginia" an estate for one's 
own life or for the life of his wife would qualify an elector. 
North Carolina also permitted a man to vote in right of a 

^ Learning and Spicer, 658. ^ Smith, History of New'Jersey, 341. 

^ 8 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 306. * Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

* 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, § 2, Van Schaack's Laws, 40. 
^ Resolution of the House of Burgesses, 36 Car. II, 3 Hening, 26. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 8l 

life estate,^ while both this colony' and Virginia'' declared 
that an estate for the life of another, or an estate of greater 
dignity, was sufficient." The privilege of voting in right of 
an estate for the life of one's wife was recognized also in 
England, where it was enacted that a man might vote in 
right of his wife's dower from a former husband, even 
though the dower had not been assigned or set out by 
metes and bounds.^ New York required freeholds to be 
free from all encumbrance,*' although an exception seems to 
have been recognized in the case of persons who had mort- 
gaged their lands, but were still in possession and in receipt 
of the income or profits.' In the case of Philipse vs. Van 
Home, the Assembly rendered a decision to the effect that 
" a grantor of a mortgage in fee forfeited, who has been in 
possession several }'ears, could not vote by virtue of said mort- 
gage." ** The meaning of this decision is not perfectly clear, 
but it appears to be based on the theory that the grantee of 
a piece of property, conveyed upon foreclosure of a mortgage, 
did not hold the fee absolutely so long as there existed an 
equity of redemption. An English statute" held in the anal- 
ogous case of the property qualification of a member of Par- 
liament that seven years' possession was necessary in order 
to extinguish the equity of redemption. The rule in Rhode 
Island was that no person whose estate was under mortgage 
could vote after the mortgage had expired and the mortgagee 
had come into possession. The mortgagee, if he was in 

' 17 Geo. II, chap. I, § iv; Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. ^ Ibid. 

^ Resolution of the House of Burgesses, 36 Car. II, 3 Hening, 26. 

■* Also 4 Anne, chap, ii, § 6, 3 Hening, 236. 

'" 20 Geo. Ill, chap. 17, § 12. 

•• II Will. Ill, chap. 74, § I, Van Schaack's Laws,, 28. 

'13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, § 3; Van Schaack's Laws, 40. 

^ d New York Colonial Documents, 56; i Jotirtial New York Assembly, 716. 

" 9 Anne, chap. 5, 4thly. 



82 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

possession, could vote.^ In England, in the case of lands 
under mortgage or held in trust, the mortgagor or cestui que 
trust could vote, unless the trustee or mortgagee was in 
actual possession or in receipt of the rents or profits." 
With reference to joint estates, there was a peculiar pro- 
vision in Virginia. Joint tenants or tenants in common had 
but one vote between them, unless the quantity of land was 
sufificient to give each of them the number of acres required 
i.to qualify a single voter.'' A subsequent enactment provided 
that if there was only property enough to qualify for a single 
vote, that was not to be given unless the owners were agreed.^ 
In all matters of property, the common law favored posses- 
sion rather than ownership. Therefore, as will be seen when 
we come to treat of the town franchise in North Carolina, the 
tenant rather than the owner was permitted to vote.* 
Georgia gave a vote to a person "legally possessed in his 
own right of fifty acres of land,"" and Connecticut required 
no more than possession.' Virginia on the contrary recog- 
nized ownership. Persons could vote who had freeholds in 
their own possession or in the possession of their tenants for 
"term of years, at will or suffrance."* After 1760 copy- 
holders were disfranchised in England,** but whether this 
tenure would qualify a voter in America does not appear to 
have been decided. 

2) Length of Possession Required. In order to put a stop 
to conveyances made on purpose to qualify an elector, 
several of the colonies required freeholders to have been in 

^Southwick ed., 1772, 29. ^ 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, § 7. 

" 10 Geo. II, chap, vi, § 6; 4 Hening, 475. 

* 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, 7 Hening, 519. ^ Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 99, 114. 
« Act June 9th, 1 761. '' Session Laws, ^o. 

* 10 Geo. II, chap, ii, § 11, 4 Hening, 475; 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, §4, 7 Hening, 
519- 

^ Stattite 31 Geo. II, chap. 14. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 83 

possession of their estates a certain length of time before 
an election. In New York this period was put at three 
months before the test of the writs/ while in North Carolina 
it was three months before the elector ofifered to vote.^ A 
freemen voting as a freeholder in New Jersey must have 
been such for one year.'^ In Virginia no person could vote 
" in respect or in right of any lands, or tenements, whereof 
he has not been in possession for one whole year, next before 
the test of the writ for such election: unless such lands or 
tenements came to such person within that time, by descent, 
marriage, marriage settlement or devise."* Just before the 
revolution the length of possession was reduced to six calendar 
months.'' The law on this point in Virginia appears to have 
been taken from two English statutes,*' which required holders 
of the county franchise to have paid charges and received 
rents during the year preceding an election, with the ex- 
ceptions allowed in Virginia and also for lands acquired 
by presentation to some benefice in the church or by prom'o- 
tion to some ofifice, to which such freehold was affixed. 

3) Proof of Property Qualification. The general rule was 
that a voter must declare his qualifications upon oath if he was 
required to do so.' This power to examine voters as to, their 

''■ II Will. Ill, chap, 74, § I, Van Schaack's Z«2W, 28. 

^ 8 Geo. II, chap, ii, 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § v; Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

^ 13 Geo. I, chap. 40, § i; Nevill's Laws, lii.it Allinson's Laivs, 69. 

* 10 Geo. II, chap, ii, § 4, 4 Hening, 475. 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 6, re- 
quired either possession or a legal title for a year, 7 Hening, 519. 

^ 10 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 4, 8 Hening, 305. 

* 10 Anne, chap. 23, § 2, and 18 Geo. II, chap. 18. 

'See Massachusetts, Laws 1693-4, chap. 14, §8, i Ames and Goodell, 148; 
Rhode Island, 16 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 252; New York, 11 Will. Ill, 
chap. 74, § 5, Van Schaack's Laws, 28; New Jersey, 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's 
Laws, 142; Virginia, 10 Geo. II, chap, ii, 4 Hening, 475; North Carolina, 17 
Geo. II. chap, i, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177; 33 Geo. II, chap, i, ed. 1772, 
247; Georgia, Act June 9th, 1761. See appendix A, post. 



84 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



qualifications under oath was established in England by the 
statute of 8 Henry VI, chap. 7. Perjury and subornation 
were punished there/ as well as in New York '^ and Vir- 
ginia,'' under the Statute of Perjuries of 5 Elizabeth. 
The laws of Rhode Island were especially explicit on this 
subject. Deeds must be recorded and produced in open 
town meeting at the time of voting. In case of dispute as 
to the value of a freehold, three persons chosen by the town 
meeting were to appraise the property in question. Town 
clerks were permitted to search the records and certify as to 
a freeholder's qualifications. Persons were required to vote 
in the town where they lived, but in case the estate for 
which they voted was not at their place of residence, they 
were required to produce a certificate, dated within ten 
days, from the clerk of the town in which the estate was 
situated. If a person was challenged as to his qualification, 
he could take the oath and vote on that occasion only. Iii 
future, he must have a certificate of the value of his freehold 
from the appraisers.* In New Hampshire, qualifications 
were proved by the last lists of rates and assessments which 
the selectmen were required to bring to the place of election,'^ 
although later the moderator seems to have decided the mat- 
ter.'' Massachusetts required that the property qualification of 
those who were not church members should be certified by 
the majority of the selectmen of the town where they resided.' 
This was at one time the law in Connecticut, but ultimately,^ 

1 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25. . 

^ 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 9, Van Schaacks Laws, 28. 
^ 10 Geo. Ill, chap, ii, § 7, 4 Hening, 475. 

* 20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13, 24; Hall's Code, 1767, Title ElecHojis, 78. 

* 1 1 Will. Ill, 3 Provincial Papers, 216. 

^ I Geo. II, chap. 107, Fowle ed., 1761, 142; ed. 1771, 166. 

^ Massachtisetts Colonial Records, ^t. ii, 117, 167. 

^ 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1 1 ; Session Laws, 40, 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 85 

the value of a person's estate was computed by the tax-Hst 
of the year in which he desired to be admitted as a freeman.' 

In Pennsylvania the Quakers preserved their conscientious 
scruples by leaving the matter of estimating the value of free- 
holds to election officers chosen for that purpose, and aided 
by tax lists, as well as by the oaths and affirmations of the 
voters." There seems to have been a similar reluctance to 
commit perjury in Virginia. Accordingly we find that the 
sherififs were required to put in a separate poll list, the votes 
of such electors as had any scruple about taking the oath, 
because they did not feel qualified to judge of the value of 
their freeholds. If the House of Burgesses made a scrutiny 
of the poll such votes were to be counted as good.^ At 
one time in South Carolina a number of parishes had been 
occupied by the Indians, and it was provided that the inhabi- 
tants who still held lands could vote in whatever parish they 
pleased. In such cases, however, they were required to 
prove to the electors of parishes that they had not parted 
with their property.* How such proof was to be adduced is 
not clear. 

A great deal of fraud was perpetrated by means of con- 
veyances made in order to qualify electors, in order that 
they might vote for some particular person. To prevent 
this, the oaths taken by electors frequently contained a clause 
declaring that the estate by which the voter was qualfied had 
not been conveyed for this purpose. '' In Rhode Island the 

■• 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 129; Session Laws, 149. 
13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 346. 

» 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 14, 7 Hening, 519. 

* Act 1716, no. 365, §§ xi, xii, 2 Cooper, 683. 

"New York (11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 4, Van Schaack's Laws, 28); New Jer- 
sey (12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142); Virginia (10 Geo. II, chap, ii, 4 
Hening, 475); North Carolina (33 Geo. II, chap, r, Davis ed., 1773, 247); 
Georgia (Act June 9th, 1761). See appendix A of this work. Similar oaths were 
required in England. Statutes, 10 Anne, chap. 23; 18 Geo. II, chap. 18. 



3 5 HI ST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

grantee of an estate had to take a similar oath, and persons 
convicted of giving or receiving fraudulent conveyances were 
forever disfranchised.^ In New Jersey fraudulent conveyances 
to multiply votes or to qualify voters were taken as free and 
absolute against the grantors if there was an agreement to 
reconvey, while collateral securities for defeating the estate 
were declared void. Persons making such conveyances, or 
voting by color of them, were liable to a fine of ten pounds.^ In 
Virginia estates created or conveyances rnade to qualify voters 
were null and void ; persons voting by color of such convey- 
ances, or who being privy to the purpose of their creation should 
aid in drawing them up, were liable to a fine of forty pounds.^ 

B. THE TOWN AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE. As tOWnS began tO 

spring up, it became necessary, in those colonies where the 
qualifications of electors were determined not so much by 
the value of the real property they held, as by its area, to 
provide some special test for those voters who resided in 
towns and hence did not own fifty or a hundred acres, as 
was required in the counties at large. This franchise must 
be distinguished also on the one hand from that possessed 
by persons voting for assemblymen in right of their free- 
dom in a municipal corporation, as, for instance, New York 
and Albany,* and on the other hand from the right to vote 
for local officers in a New England town meeting or for 
municipal officers, by virtue of the ownership of a freehold 
within the city limits.^ We shall see that this franchise was 
generally conferred by the act incorporating a particular 
town, while the want of it in Georgia, where the possession 

1 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

- 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, § i, Nevill's laws, 142. This was the law in England, 
as laid down by 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, and 10 Anne, chap. 23. 
' 10 Geo. II, chap, i, § iii, 4 Hening, 475. 
* II Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 10, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 
^New York, 11 Geo. Ill, chap. 1490, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



87 



of fifty acres of land was required of electors, is said to have 
disfranchised many freeholders in towns whose estates might 
be greater in value and liable for heavier taxes than several 
hundred acres in the country.' It may be supposed that in 
Virginia this franchise was indicated by the shortlived law 
of 1655, which limited the suffrage to "all housekeepers, 
whether ffreeholders, leaseholders or otherwise tenants,^ and 
also by the statute of 22 Charles II, which finally gave the 
elective franchise to freeholders and housekeepers.'^ The 
former act allowed but one person in a family to avail him- 
'self of this privilege. This is in line with the ancient English 
custom which regarded the burgess-ship as the absolute right 
of all free inhabitant-housekeepers,* and admitted but one 
voice to a house.^ The act of 1736 which defined the number 
of acres to be possessed by freeholders in the counties 
expressly exempted from its operation all freeholders resi- 
dent in cities or towns incorporated by act of assembly, 
and confirmed them in their privilege of voting in right of a 
house and lot, or of a house and part of a lot. In case the 
interest in such house and lot was divided, but one voice 
could be admitted for the same house and lot.'* A later statute 
required such town houses to be at least twelve feet square.' 
The burgess from the college of William and Mary was re- 
turned by the president and- the masters or professors."^ 
The charter of Williamsburg gave the right to return one 
burgess, first to all the freeholders of the city who owned a 
lot of land in the city with a house built thereon accord- 
ing to law; in the second place, to a:ll actual residents who 

^ I Stevens, History of Georgia, 412. 

'^ 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii, I Hening, 411. 

^ 2 Hening, 280. * Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections, I'j'], 189. 

5 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25. « 10 Geo. II, chap, ii, 4 Hening, 475. 

' 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 4, 7 Hening, 519. 

^4 Anne, chap, ii, § vii, 3 Hening, 241. See Appendix K,post. 



88 . HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

had a visible estate of fifty pounds current money, and, lastly, 
to all persons who had served five years at any trade within 
the city, and should at the end of that time be actually house- 
keepers and residents. A certificate in regard to the appren- 
ticeship must be obtained from the court of Hustings. On 
the lot owned by a freeholder there must be a house of certain 
dimensions required by law for " saving " such lot in tenantable 
repair at the time of voting. Servants, whether they were 
bound by indenture, covenant or other form of obligation, 
could not vote. Twelve months residence was required of 
all electors. Joint tenants and tenants in common had only 
one vote between them, and that was to be given only in case 
the parties could agree.^ 

By the Fundamental Constitutions of East Jersey the pos- 
sessor of a house and three acres in a borough was enfran- 
chised ; also the tenant of a hired house and land, provided 
he could prove that he had fifty pounds in stock of his own.' 
Under the royal government two representatives were re- 
turned by the inhabitants-householders of Burlington in West 
Jersey and two' by the inhabitants-householders of Perth Am- 
boy in East Jersey.^ In Philadelphia two representatives 
were returned by those of the inhabitants who had a freehold 
estate or were worth fifty pounds clear, personal estate, 
within the city.* In South Carolina a freeholder of " houses, 
lands or town lots or parts thereof to the value of £6o pro- 
clamation money in Charlestown or any other town for which 
he paid tax the precedent year" was permitted to vote for 
assemblymen.* As soon as a town in North Carolina had 
sixty families it returned a member to the assembly." As 

^ 15 Geo. II, chap. 26; 5 Hening, 204. 

'^ Concessions 1683, § iii, Learning and Spicer, 153. '■ Ibid., 623. 

* 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. ^ Act 1745, no. 730, 3 Cooper, 657. 

* 2 Hawks, History of North Carolina, 176. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 89 

the early laws required only the payment of one year's levy 
and residence in the province a full year preceding an elec- 
tion, there was no need of a separate qualification for resi- 
dents of towns. ^ In 1723 the law of 171 5 was supplemented 
by an act defining the qualifications of holders of the town 
franchise. Every elector must own a "saved lot" in the 
town and constantly keep a house thereon in repair. The 
house and lot could not be let to or tenanted by a " person 
capable of voting in the town, though not residing therein." 
If, however, a person who had paid the preceding year's 
" levy or pole tax," rented and lived " in and on such house 
and lot, in the said town not tenanted," he could vote. 
" But if the tenant by law have not a right to vote, then the 
owner thereof, and not the tenant, shall have the vote."' 
The act incorporating the town of Edenton'^ gave a vote 
to the owner of a " saved " lot who had held it for six months 
before the election. In Wilmington the borough franchise 
was given to the tenant of a brick, stone or frame house 
twenty feet long by sixteen wide, who inhabited said house 
on the day of election and had done so for three months 
previously. If there was no tenant qualified to vote, then 

^ Laws 1 7 15, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213, 

'■' These vaguely worded provisions are taken from the original copy, now pre- 
served in the North Carolina State Library, of chap, ii, Laws of 1723, "An act 
intituled an additional Act relating to biennial and other assemblies and regulating 
Elections and divers other things relating to Towns." See Appendix B, post. It 
is quoted as obsolete in Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 53, and ed. 1773, 30. There 
is also another act, chap, ii, Lazvs 1727, "an Act regulating towns and election 
of Burgesses," Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 67; ed. 1773, 37. This is given only 
by title in the statute books, and the writer is informed by Mr. J. C. Birdsong, 
the State Librarian, that the original manuscript laws of the State from 1723 to 
1743 are supposed to have been destroyed by fire about 1830. It has conse- 
quently, been impossible to secure a copy, although Dr. Hawks (^History of North 
Carolina, 177) apparently refers to it. 

■'' 14 Geo. II, chap, xii, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 107. 



90 



HISTOR y OF ELECTIONS 



the person seized in his own right in fee simple, fee tail or for 
life had the franchise. A vote in the choice of the represent- 
ative from Wilmington was also given to every "man" who 
inhabited a brick house, thirty feet by sixteen, " between the 
bounds of that town upwards and South Creek, and within 
1 20 Poles of Cape Feare River," unless such person was a 
servant.' In Brunswick the voter must be the tenant, or if 
there was none, the owner of a stone or habitable house 
within the town of the " Dimensions of Twenty feet by Six- 
teen with one or more Brick or Stone Chimney or Chimnies."^ 
In other respects the qualifications were the same as in Wil- 
mington. The preference given the tenant as against the 
owner in North Carolina is worthy of note. This doubtless 
was due to the common law presumption in favor of pos- 
session. 

§ 9. Miscellaneous. There were a few minor qualifications , 
required at various times, which do not fall conveniently 
under any of the preceding heads. Thus, New Jersey's first 
concession and agreement, as well as that of Carolina, de- 
clared that all persons who were " subjects to the King of 
England and swear or subscribe allegiance to the King and 
faithfulness to the Lords," should be freemen. The inhabi- 
tants who were freemen or chief agents to others should 
elect the representatives.'' In West Jersey proprietors were 
allowed to vote,* though in South Carolina both they and 
their deputies were debarred.'' The latter provision was 
doubtless derived by analogy from England, where a peer 
of the realm had no voice in the choice of a member of 

^Acts 1739,1740, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 99, 114. 

^ 33 Geo. II, chap, i, § xiii, Davis ed., 1773, 247. 

•^ New Jersey, 1664, i New Jersey Archives, 30, Learning and Spicer, 12 ei seq.; 
Carolina, 1665, i North Carolina Colo7iial Records, 80, 166. 

* Learning and Spicer, 3S5. '"" h.<:.\. 1704, no. 227, § xi, 2 Cooper, 249. 



IiV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



91 



parliament.^ Persons under guardianship could not vote in 
Rhode Island.' A statute enacted in 171 7 declared that 
" no apprentice or other covenanted servant for term of 
years, whether by indenture or custom of the county, 
could be an elector" in South Carolina.^ The petition, 
already quoted, to the lords proprietors, of Carolina, com- 
plained, that, at the Berkeley county election in 1701, a 
great number of servants, and also poor and indigent persons 
voted promiscuously Vvdth their masters and creditors.' 
This would lead to the inference that neither debtors nor 
servants could legally be electors in South Carolina.^ Dur- 
ing the interval between the efforts to introduce the consti- 
tution of Locke and the final adoption of a property 
qualification,'' North Carolina required of voters the pay- 
ment of the levy for the year preceding the election.' The 
laws drawn up by Penn in 1682, declared that every inhabi- 
tant, artificer or other resident who paid scot and lot to the 
government could vote,^ 

In New York persons refusing to take upon tender of the 
sheriff the oaths appointed by law to be taken instead of the 
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and to sign the test and 
association could not vote.^ New Hampshire in the earlier 
part of her history as a separate province, seems to have 
required the oath of allegiance from all electors.'" By the 
Hartford Constitution of 1638 all those who had taken 

' Troward, Elections, 2i. -Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

* Act 171 7, no. 373, § xi, 3 Cooper, 2. 

* Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 453, et seq. 

•' Probably this was also true in Virginia. 21 Car. I, Act xx, i Hening, 333. 

''17 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis and Swann ed. 1752, 177. 

' La-ivs, 1715, 2. N'orth Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 

** I Pen7isylvania Colottial Records, 37. 

•' 13 Will. Ill, chap. 94, Van Schaack's Zaw5, 40. 

'"Belknap, History 0/ New Hampshire, 177; i Provincial Papers, 396. 



92 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



the " oath of FideHity and doe cohabitte within the juris- 
diction (haueing been admitted inhabitants by the major 
part of the town where they Hve)" were allowed to vote for the 
magistrates of the colony.^ In general it may be stated that 
whenever the suffrage was exercised only by persons duly 
admitted as freemen, the taking of the prescribed oath be- 
came a condition precedent to the right of voting. 

§ lo. Admission of Freemen. It has already been men- 
tioned that in New England the right of voting was inhei-ent 
in persons admitted to the freedom of a colony. To obtain 
this freedom, and thus become a freeman and incidentally an 
elector, certain prescribed steps had to be taken. Before 
going into a detailed account of the methods that were 
followed in admitting the freemen of the different col- 
onies, it will perhaps be well to state the general rules on the 
subject. Freemen could originally be admitted only at one 
of the general courts. The court could probably exercise 
a certain amount of discretion as to who should be ad- 
mitted, and it usually insisted that the names of candidates 
should be proposed a certain length of time before enrol- 
ment. Freemen became such upon taking the oath and hav- 
ing their names enrolled. Ultimately freemen were allowed 
to be admitted in their own towns, and in such cases the 
town clerk was required to send their names to the secretary 
of the colony for enrollment. The writer, for reasons else- 
where explained, believes that the principle of allowing the 
freedom of a colony to stand as the sole qualification of a 
voter did not exist 'outside of the five Puritan colonies.' 

Beginning with the Plymouth colony, we find that in 1658 
a law was passed requiring those who desired to be admitted 
as freemen to have their names "propounded" at the June 
court, and in that case they could be admitted at the corres- 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. '^ See p. 49, ante. 



IiV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. ^3 

ponding court twelve months later, " if the court shall not 
see cause to the contrary." ^ We may imagine that this dis- 
cretion given to the court was the earliest form of an electoral 
quahfication. In 1674, as a condition precedent to 
proposal in the general court, candidates had to be approved 
by the majority of the freemen of their town, and that ap- 
proval communicated to the general court through the depu- 
ties under the town clerk's hand. The names of the freemen 
in each town were required to be kept on the town record.'^ 
Later when qualifications were required, persons could only 
be admitted at the court of election in open court, and i^' 
then not until after they had been proposed for a year. 
Persons " generally known and approved, or of whom the 
court may make present improvement," were not required 
to serve a term of probation.'' In Massachusetts, as in 
Plymouth, the power»to admit freemen rested with the general 
court. But in 1664, in order to save newly-admitted freemen 
the trouble of coming to Boston in order to take the oath, it 
was provided that they could be sworn by a county court. 
For this purpose the Secretary of the colony was authorized 
to make out from the records of the general court a list of 
those who had been admitted to the freedom of the colony, 
and give it, with a copy of the freeman's oath, to an agent of 
the persons admitted, who should deliver it to the clerk 
or recorder of the county court where they were to be 
sworn.'* The names of those desiring to receive the 
freedom of the colony were propounded and put to vote in 
the general court for acceptance "by the suffrage of the ^ 
major part.'"' From 1673 to 1683 candidates who were not 
church members were required to have their names entered 

^ Laws, 16158, Brigham 108. ^ Laws, 1674, Brigham, 170. 

'^ Book of General La-di's, 1671, Brigham 258. 

*4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 134, 299. ^ Ibid., 117, 167. 



94 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



" from tyme to tyme with the Secretary at the court of elec- 
tion, and read over before the court sometime that session, 
and not put to vote " till the court of election next following.' 
For a short time there existed a law forbidding the admis- 
sion of freemen on the day of the court of election.' Under 
the royal government after 1691 the freedom of the colony 
did not exist. 

Rhode Island seems to have recognized a distinction be- 
tween the freedom of the colony and the freedom qf a town. 
This was most probably due to the fact that Rhode Island 
was a confederacy of several towns of equal size, rather than 
a colony whose towns were created under acts of a general 
court, as was the case in Plymouth and Massachusetts.'' 
Before the first charter Portsmouth decided that none 
could be admitted as inhabitants or as freemen without the 
consent of the body.* At first the freedom of the colony in 
Rhode Island as well as elsewhere was conferred only by 
the general court.^ About 1665 we find it stated that per- 
sons with " sufficient testimony of their fitness and qualifica- 
tions, as shall be deemed satisfactory by the assembly, or by 
the chief officer of the town where they lived," should be 
proposed and admitted " upon their express desire declared 
to the assembly either by themselves or the chief officer of 
their town." They could not vote until they had been ad- 
mitted by the assembly and sworn, and their names entered 
on the general records of the colony.® The towns were 
given power to admit freemen soon afterward, and the 

' 5 Massachuseiis Colonial Records, 385. 

^4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. li, 86; repealed, ibid. 134. 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 236, 4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 338. 
The latter reference is the repeal of a law which was in force for a short time, and 
which restricted the choice of deputies to freemen of the colony. 

* I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 53, 85. ^ Ibid., 104, 108, 263, etc. 

* 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 113, 516. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLOXIES. 05 

clerk was required to send a list of those admitted to the 
general assembly in May of each year.' The assembly did 
not lose its power to admit freemen.' The names of candi-. 
dates for admission were proposed for three months in 
town meeting,"* an exception, however, being made in the 
case of those entitled to be freemen by virtue of their birth. 
Freemen removing from one town to another were admitted 
in their new place of residence upon presentation of a certifi- 
cate, without being propounded.* No one could be made 
free on election day.^ 

In the New Haven colony freemen were admitted at a 
meeting of the general court," and this was also true in Hart- 
ford,' though at first freemen had to take the oath of fidelity 
and be admitted inhabitants by the majority of the resi- 
dents of the town where they lived.* They were pre- 
sented at the October general court in " an orderly 
way, to prevent tumult and trouble," and admitted at 
the May court." After 1689 freemen were admitted and 
sworn by any assistant or commissioner, who was required 
before the next general sessions to send the names of those 
he had admitted to the secretary of the colony for enrollment.^" 
Finally freemen were admitted in town meetings, as was ul- 
timately the case in Rhode Island. The town clerk admin- 
istered the oath and enrolled the names in a book provided 

1 18 Car. II, Franklin ed, 1744, 9; 6 Rhode Island Colottial Records, 323. 
^ 6 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 256. ^ 20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 
■* Hall's Code, lyby, . Title Elec/ionf, yS. ^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, igo. 
^ I A^e7v Haven Colonial Records, 35, 40, etc. 
"l Connecticut Colonial Records, ii^i'j. ^ Ibid., 21, 

3 /^2</., 331, 389. 

^°4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 17, Session laws, ^o; 4 Connectictit Colonial 
Records, 483, provided that an assistant or a justice of the peace could administer 
the oath. 



96 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



for the purpose.' The penalty of disfranchisement was in- 
flicted by the superior court. 

In addition to the freedom of the Puritan colonies it is 
necessary to consider the rules governing the admission of 
freemen of the cities in the province of New York, inasmuch 
as such persons could vote for assemblymen. Thus, the 
Dongan charter gave to the Mayor, Recorder and Alder- 
men of New York the privilege of making free citizens 
under their common seal. As a condition precedent to the 
freedom of the city, persons must be natural born subjects 
of the king or else have been naturalized by act of assem- 
bly, or by letters of denization from the lieutenant governor. 
The use of any " Art trade Mystery or Manual Occupation " 
within the limits of the city, was restricted to freemen of the 
corporation and as we have already seen/ they possessed the 
privilege of voting at the elections of members of the assembly. 
The Montgomery charter contained similar provisions. The 
common council fixed the fee for freedoms at five pounds.* 
The provisions in regard to freemen under the Dongan 
charter of Albany are similar to those with respect to New 
York." In Philadelphia the freedom of the corporation 
could be bestowed on free denizens of the province twenty- 
one years of age who were inhabitants of the city with an 
estate of inheritance or of freehold, or who were worth 
fifty pounds in money or other stock, and who had been 
residents within the city for the space of two years, or 
who should purchase their freedom from the Mayor and 
commonalty. This does not, however, specially concern 

1 3 Geo. II, chap. 47, Session Laws, 370; 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 260. 

''■Session Lazvs, 1750, 81. ^See p. 47, ante. 

*See Neiu York Historical Society Collections, 1885, 48, 481. The com- 
plete rolls of the freemen of the city, as well as of the holders of the Burgher 
rights in Dutch times are published in this volume. 

^ 1686; Weise, History of- Albany, 200. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. gy 

US, for the freedom of Philadelphia did not in itself en- 
title a person to vote for assemblymen. Besides this, the 
qualifications required of freemen were practically the same 
as those required of electors in general.^ 

In England, toward the close of the colonial era, two stat- 
utes were enacted with a view to putting a stop to the nu- 
merous abuses which appear to have developed on the sub- 
ject of freedoms. On being refused admission, a person 
could compel the ofificers to grant him a certificate, by means 
of a writ of mandamus from the Court of King's Bench, and 
he could recover his costs from the delinquent corporation. 
Freemen must have held their freedom for twelve months 
before they could vote for members of Parliament, and cor- 
porate officers were fined ^500 for antedating the admission 
of a freeman. During certain hours of the day, and upon pay- 
ment of a nominal fee, books and papers bearing on the 
subject were open to the inspection of candidates or of their 
agents, or of any two freemen.^ 

^ Miller ed., 1762, 10. ^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15; 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 21. 



CHAPTER III. THE MANAGEMENT OF ELECTIONS. 

When we come to consider the subject of the manage- 
ment of elections we find the colonies divided into three 
great classes. The first group comprised the four colonies 
founded under Puritan influence and situated in the territory 
which we call New England. Just as these developed the 
principle of requiring voters to be freemen of the colony, and 
inclined, so long as they were left to themselves, toward re- 
ligious and moral rather than property qualifications for 
electors, so did they develop and possibly originate the sys- 
tem of nominating candidates for the office of assistant, and 
the proxy method of voting. These two features, peculiar to 
New England elections, were developed contemporaneously 
in the four Puritan colonies, and reached in Rhode Island 
and Connecticut the final stage which would doubtless have 
been attained in Massachusetts and Plymouth had it not 
been for the interference of the English government which 
resulted in the charter of 1691. 

The second group of colonies includes those which elected 
the members of their legislatures in a manner almost pre- 
cisely similar to that employed in choosing members of the 
House of Commons in England. In this class we 
would place New York, Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, and 
New Jersey after 1704. The system in vogue was due to 
the fact that these colonies were most closely under royal 
rule, and that Maryland, although she had a proprietary 
government, avowedly followed the English practice.^ 

^ See Act 1678; Maryland A7'ckives, 3 Proceedings and Ads of Assefnbly, 60.. 



AY THE AMERICAN COLONIES. qq 

The third group includes colonies proprietary in their 
origin, just as those of the first were corporate, and those of 
the second, royal provinces. In the present group we 
would place the two Jersey colonies, Pennsylvania and 
Delaware, and the two Carolinas. In all of these the pro- 
prietors tried to introduce systems of government, original 
in many respects, but so visionary that they worked badly 
in practice. For several of these colonies some remarkable 
methods of conducting elections were designed, and these in 
time received many modifications, so that they finally 
occupied a position midway between those of the colonies in 
the first two classes and embracing many of the salient 
characteristics of each. 

It is noteworthy that the first and the third class from the 
beginning of their history used the ballot, an institution 
which was not introduced in English parliamentary elections 
until 1872. The form of the ballot difTered considerably, but / 
secrecy was the chief end desired by the Puritans, especially 
in the election of assistants. In the Carolinas, however, the 
secret ballot seems to have reached a high state of develop- 
ment, although, as we shall see. North Carolina went back to 
the English method in 1760.^ 

§ I. The Calling of an Election. Two methods appear to 
have been employed by the colonial governments in calling 
an election. The first was by a statutory or constitutional 
provision fixing certain days as those on which elections 
should take place. The best example of this method is 
found in the Puritan colonies. In each of these the election 



^ Mr. Douglas Campbell in bis recent work, The Ptiritan in England, Holland 
and America, makes the statement (vol. ii, 440) that the ballot did not appear 
in the colonies south of Pennsylvania. With all deference to Mr. Campbell, 
I believe this statement to be erroneous, because, as will be shown in a subsequent 
section, the ballot in the Carolinas was as fully developed in the direction of secrecy 
as in those colonies under the influence of Puritan ideas. 

L.cfC. 



joo HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

of the governor and other general officers took place at 
specified sessions of the general courts usually held in the 
spring. When assembled for the choice of magistrates it 
was known as the General Court of Election, and was origin- 
ally attended by all the freemen, but afterwards by their 
representatives. 

The second method prevailed in the colonies which were 
more directly controlled by the English government, and 
where the only elected officers of a general character were the 
members of the legislative assembly. The elections of these, 
like the election of the members of the House of Commons, 
were called by means of writs prerogative in their character, 
and therefore issued by or under authority of the royal govern- 
or as representive of the crown. The only limitation on the 
power to issue writs of election was that established by 
statutes similar to those in England,^ and requiring assemblies 
to be elected at least once in certain fixed periods. The 
power to call assemblies was usually conferred by the com- 
missions or instructions of the royal governors.' The maxi- 
mum period for which assemblymen were elected in New 
Jersey was fixed by statute at seven years^ ; in Maryland * 
and Virginia,^ (perhaps also in New Hampshire*') at three 

^ 6 Will, and Mary, chap, i, "triennial;" I Geo. I, chap. 38, "septennial." 

^ For example, New Hampshire, commission of President Cutts (Fowle ed, 1771, 
4) ; New York, Governor Dongan, 1682-3 (3 New Y'ork Colonial Documents, 317, 
330, and 624) ; New Jersey, Lord Cornbury, 1702 (Leaming and Spicer, 623, 647). 
Penn called his assemblies by virtue of his own authority as Proprietor, conferred 
by his charter (§4, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records. 19; Chalmers, Political 
Annals, 64.^; i Frond, Ilislojy 0/ Pennsylvania, 206 j. So did Lord Baltimore 
through his representative in Maryland (yMa^yland Archives, I Assembly, l,etc.^. 
So also the Carolinas {\ North Carolina Colo7iial Records, iSi, 22iS> 333) > ^T^d 
under royal rule by Governor Burrington's commission (1729-30, 3 Aorth Caro- 
lina Colonial Records, 68) . 

■'■ 8 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 306, 307. 

■* Marylatid Archives, 1 Correspondence Govej'nor Sharpe, 68. See p. 34 a7ite. 

° 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 3, 7 Hening, 519. ^ 4 Provincial Papers, 114. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. lOi 

years ; while North Carolina had biennial elections,' as had 
South Carolina during a portion of her history.^ By Penn's 
Charter of Privileges it was provided that assemblies should 
be elected annually.^ 

In addition to these two systems we shall find that one or 
two colonies not only fixed a certain date on which elections 
were to be held, but also provided that a writ should be 
issued in anticipation of the appointed day/ We find that 
in Pennsylvania in 1688—9 the question of issuing writs in 
such cases was decided in the negative. It seems that the 
governor asked his council whether it were useful or need- 
ful for him to issue writs or warrants for summoning the 
freemen to elect representatives on the appointed day. The 
council in reply resolved that the freemen would observe 
the day " of course " without writs or warrants.^ 

The New England court of election was held annually at 
the capital of each colony, the date being fixed by law. In 
the Plymouth Colony, until 1636, it was held at Plymouth 
on January ist," though in the latter years of this period the 
persons elected did not take office until after March 27th.' 
From 1636 till 1658, the first Tuesday in March was fixed 
as the day of election,^ but in the latter year the date was 
changed to the corresponding Tuesday in June, " nothing 
extraordinary preventing.'"* The last general court of elec- 

^1715; 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 

*3 Cooper, 135, "triennial;" 3 Cooper, 692, "biennial;" 3 Cooper, 656, "an- 
nual." See p. 43, ante. 

* I Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. 

■'West Jersey, Learning and Spicer, 423; Carolinas, I North Carolina Colo- 
nial Records, 181, 376, 696, f/c. 

^ I Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 240. 

«l Plymouth Colony Records, 5. "^ Ibid., 21. 

^ Laivs, 1636; II Plymouth Colony Records, 7, 10; Brigham, 37, 40. 

^ Lazvs, 1658, Brigham, 108. 



102 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

tion was held June 2nd, 1691/ ' After 1691, associates were 
elected in the county courts on the last Wednesday in June.^ 

The Massachusetts election took place at Boston. The 
date prescribed by the charter of 1628 was the last Wednes- 
day of Easter Term,^ In April 1629, Governor Endicott 
was elected in London, and another election appears to 
have been held in October of the same year.* In October, 
1678, a special court of election was held,* while after 1632 
the regular election took place on the second Wednesday in 
May." This continued to be the practice until 1686, when the 
last election before the forfeiture of the charter took place."' 

Newport, before the charter of Providence Plantations was 
granted, held her courts of election on March 12th of each 
year.^ Under the charter the first court of election was held 
at Portsmouth, May 19th, 1647, ^^^^ it was resolved to hold it 
thereafter on May 15th of each year "if wind and weather 
hinder not."^ Subsequent elections appear to have been 
held in rotation at each of the four towns,'" The charter of 
15 Charles II, provided that the court of election should be 
held every year on the first Wednesday of May, at Newport 
or elsewhere " if urgent."" 

In New Haven until about 1647 the court of election was 
held during the last week of October.'' Then the date was 

' 6 Plymouth Colony Records, 264. ^ Brigham, 237. 

" I Massachttsetts Colonial Records, 12, 277. * Ibid., 59. 

°5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 195. 
* I Massachusetts Colo7tial Records, 95. 
'5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 513. 

^ 1640, 1641; I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 98, lOO, 112, 123. 
'^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 147, 149. 

^^ Ibid., 149, 216, 220, 235, 241. Two rival elections each purporting to be for 
the colony, Ibid., 244, 262, 264, 278, 303, 336, 363, 386, 407. 
^' 2 Rhode Island Colo7iial Records, 11. 
^^ I New Haven Colottial Records, 20, 1 14. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



103 



changed to the last Wednesday in May.^ The Hartford con- 
stitution of 1638 fixed the date for the election of Governor 
as the second Thursday in April,^ but in 1646 this was 
changed to the third Thursday in May.'^ As provided by 
the charter of 14 Charles II, the date of the election of Gov- 
ernor and other general officers for the colony of Connecti- 
cut was th-e second Thursday in May/ Plymouth passed a 
law ordering that the court of election should be held in his 
" Majesties name of England," and that the Governor through 
the constables should warn the freemen to attend.-^ The 
other colonies do not seem to have provided for any further 
notice of the court of election beyond that implied by the 
statute fixing the day on which it should be held." 

In the Puritan colonies, as has been mentioned, deputies 
were chosen by each town to represent the freemen at the 
general election/ When the proxy system was intro- 
duced, those freemen who did not attend the general 
court of election handed in their proxies at the town 
elections when the deputies were chosen.** It came to be a 
matter of importance to fix properly the dates of those town 
meetings, for ultimately, both in Rhode Island and Con- 
necticut, all the vQtes had to be cast in the towns, freemen 
being prohibited from voting in person at the general court. 
Usually each town was allowed to fix the date on which it 
would elect its deputies, provided, it may be assumed, that 
this was done a sufficient time before the meeting of the gen- 

^ \New Haven Colonial Records, 3S3; 2 ^ew Haven Colonial Records, 567, 
568. 

^I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. ^ Ibid., 140. 

* 2 Contiecticut Colonial Records, 5. 

^ Laws, 1638, Brigham, 40; li Plymouth Colony Records, 10. 

*i New Haven Colonial Records, 129; 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 131. 

' See pp. 4, 5, 10, 14, 15 ante. 

''See Plymouth, Laws, 1652; Brigham, 94, 



I04 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



eral court. Such was the rule in New Haven, where deputies 
were separately chosen for the legislative courts which met 
in April, and for the election courts which met in October/ 
In Rhode Island deputies were chosen for the October court 
at a town meeting held on the last Tuesday of August, and 
for the May court (of election when proxies were to be de- 
livered) on the first Tuesday of March.'^ In 1744 the date 
of the spring election was changed to the third Wednesday 
in April;' Hartford, like Rhode Island and New Haven, re- 
quired deputies to be elected semi-annually, viz: before the 
April court of election and before the September legislative 
court. The constables of each town were to be notified by 
the secretary or by the governor of the colony one month 
before the date of the semi-annual courts, and fourteen days, 
or less, before the meeting of special courts. The demo- 
cratic character of the Hartford government as established 
by the constitution of 1638 is shown by the provision that 
freemen could petition the governor if courts were not called 
as often as seemed necessary, and if he refused to order an 
election the freemen could empower the constable to hold one.* 
Under the Connecticut charter the date on which the depu- 
ties to the October court were chosen was the third Tuesday 
in September, and for the May court the last Tuesday in 
April. The law also provided that on both days the elec- 
tion should begin at nine o'clock in the morning.^ Some 
years later the Monday next following the first Tuesday in 
April ^ became the legal date of the spring election. 

In some of the proprietary colonies, where there were no 
general courts of election, assemblymen were chosen on a 

^ I New Haven Colonial Records, 51, 58, 69, 114, 129. 

^16 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 255, * 17 Geo. II, Ibid., 287. 

* I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 

^ 2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 131; 4 idem, 223; Session Laws, 30. 

* 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 297. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 105 

day fixed by law. East Jersey, for example, held elections 
on March 26th of each year,^ and West Jersey on March 
4th for commissioners,^ and October ist for deputies.^ 
Writs were to be issued if necessary,^ and in 1682 the date 
was changed to the fourteenth day of the second month.' 
Pennsylvania originally selected as the date of her elections 
the twentieth day of the twelfth month," but later changed it 
to the tenth day of the first month.' The thirteenth day of 
the third month was the date for sheriff and coroner elec- 
tions.* After 1705, October ist was the day on which both 
'representatives and county officers were elected.' 

Locke's Constitution designated the first Tuesday in Sep- 
tember of each alternate year as the day on which the free- 
holders of the precincts should elect representatives to the 
Carolina Parliament.'* Writs were issued," and the steward 
was required to give thirty days' notice in case the election 
was to be held at other than the customary place. North Car- 
olina also selected the first Tuesday in September as the date 
for elections.^^ An early statute of New Hampshire, and one 
that was disallowed, because it was said to be copied from the 
laws of Massachusetts, required the constables of the towns 

^Constitution of 1683, arts, i, ii, Learning and Spicer, 153; I New Jersey 
Archives, 395. 

^ Concessions and Agreements, Art. iii; Learning and Spicer, 385. 

^ Ibid., Art. xxxii. ^ Learning and Spicer, 423. 

'^ Laws, 1682, chap. 10; Learning and Spicer, 455; later changes. Ibid., 533. 

* Frame of 1682, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 33. 

'Act of Settlement of 1682, Colden, History of the Five Nations, 245. 

^ Frame of 1682, § 16, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records 42; Markham's 
Frame, 1696, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, /^(). 

^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

^"Art. 75, I Cooper, 43; l North Carolina Colonial Records, 199. 

1' I North Ca,rolina Colonial Records, 181, 377, 696, etc. 

"^"^ Laws, 1 71 5, chap. 10; 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 



1 06 HISTOR V OF FLECTIONS 

to hold elections of representatives on the first Monday in 
February.'^ 

In England the lord chancellor, lord keeper, or lords com- 
missioners of the great seal issued writs for a parliamentary 
election. They were ordered to act "with as much expedi- 
tion as the same may be done."^ In the American colonies 
these officials did not exist, so that the power of issuing pre- 
rogative writs was usually vested in the governor as the legal 
representative of the crown. Thus in Massachusetts Bay a 
statute provided that writs should be signed by the governor 
and addressed to the sherifl"s of the several counties.^ This 
was also the rule in New Hampshire,* where we find that the 
secretary was allowed a fee of five shillings for every writ 
sent to a sheriff or marshal. The marshal was allowed a fee 
of ten shillings for his services.^ In Virginia the secretary 
was allowed a hogshead of tobacco for each writ, and was 
liable to a fine for neglect to deliver the writ to the sheriff." 
The governor of New York signed the writs;' but the earli- 
est statute on the general subject of elections in the last 
named colony provided that the secretary or the clerk of 
the crown should issue the writs with as much expedition as 
possible, and deliver them under the seal to the sheriff of 
each county.^ 

In Maryland writs were issued in the name of the lord 

^Act 1680, I JVeiv Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396; I Farmer, A'ew Hamp- 
shire Historical Collections, 203. 

'' Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25. 

^ Laws, 1692-3, chap. 38; i Ames and Goodell, 89. 

*i Geo. II, chap. 107, Fowle ed., 1761, 142; ed., 1771, 166. 

^ 3 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 213, 215. 

^ 14 Car. II, Act 83, 2 Hening, 105, 203. 

'Gov. Dongan's Commission', 3 N'ew York Colonial Documents, 331. 

^11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. iq'j 

proprietor by his representatives,' while under the royal 
government from 1689 to 171 5, this was done by the gov- 
ernor in the name of the crown.- In Virginia the method 
of calling an election was prescribed in detail. Writs must 
be signed by the governor or commander-in-chief of the 
dominion for the time being, and the seal of the colony 
affixed. They were then to be delivered to the secretary 
forty days before the date set for the meeting of the 
assembly. The secretary within ten days after receiving 
them must transmit them to the sheriffs in the counties.^ 
Georgia required the governor to obtain the consent of his 
council before he issued the writs. They were then to be 
directed to the provost marshal, the official who had control 
of elections in this province.* Writs are also mentioned in 
New Jersey^ and South Carolina, and in the latter colony 
they were issued® "by Governor and Council."^ 

The form to be used in writs for the election of assembly- 
men was sometimes prescribed by statute. Examples of 
these and also of the writs used for calling the first elections 
in several of the colonies are given in the first appendix to 
this work. It is said that the writs issued in 1680 by Presi- 
dent Cutts, of New Hampshire, in calling the first assembly 
of that province, mentioned by name the persons who were 
to vote in each town.* This was also done in the early his- 
tory of Maryland, where general writs were issued naming 
the freemen who were to vote in a particular district; and 

^Act 1678, Maryland ArcJiives, I Assembly, 60; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, 
chap. II (1716), Bacon's Laws. 

^4 Will, and Mary, chap. 76; 4 Anne, chap. 42; 8 Geo. I, chap, 42. 

•*4 Anne, chap, ii, 3 Hening, 236. * Act June 9th, 1761. 

' 12 Geo. I, chap. 40; Nevill's Laws, 142. 

"Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 249. 'Act 17 16, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 

^ See I Belknap, History of New Hampshire, 177. 



I o 8 HIS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

also special writs citing gentlemen mentioned by name to 
appear in person at the assembly.' 

The period of time which must elapse between the signing 
or test of the writ and the day on which it was to be re- 
turned, was generally forty days.-^ In Virginia the sheriff 
was required to hold his court of election at least twenty 
days after receiving his writ;^ while in Maryland the date was 
fixed at not "less than ten days after making proclamatipn,* 
although an act of 1678 had provided that the election must 
take place within a reasonable time after the proclamation.* 
An English statute passed soon after the colonial period, re- 
quired the election to begin between the tenth and sixteenth 
day after proclamation.^ 

The place at which an election was to be held was not 
usually described definitely in the laws. Thus, in New York 
it was provided that it should be " at the most public and 
usual place of election where the same has most usually 

^See Maryland Archives, i Pi'oceedings and Acts of Assembly, especially Act 
1638-9, page 74. 

^New York "between teste and return of summons" (ii Will. Ill, chap. 74, 
Van Schaack's Laws, 28) ; Maryland (2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's 
Laws); Virginia forty days "before the day of return" (14 Car. II, Act 83, 2 
Hening, 105); South Carolina "before session" (Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 
683); Georgia (Act June 9th, 1761). This was also the English rule {Statute 7 
and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25). In Massachusetts, writs were issued thirty days {Laws, 
1692-3, chap. 38; I Ames and Goodell, 89), and in New Hampshire, fifteen days 
in advance of the date fixed for the assembly (i Geo. II, chap. 107, Fowle ed., 
1761, 142; ed., 1771, i66. Ten days seem to have been proposed as the limit, 4 
Provincial Papej-s, 1 14). Governor Dongan was instructed to send out his writs 
thirty days before the meeting of the first New York assembly (3 A'ew York 
Colonial Doctiments, 331). 

^ 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236. 

*2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Laws, 

^ Maryland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60. 

^ Statute 25 Geo. Ill, chap. 84; see also 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, § iii. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



109 



been."^ Sometimes, however, the precise place was indi- 
cated.'^ In Orange county. New York, because of the diffi- 
culty in crossing the mountains which intersected it, tAvo 
polling places were provided. By the law of 1748 the 
sheriff was required to begin the election at one of the places 
designated, and then adjourn to the other for not more than 
six nor less than ten days.^ 

For special elections to fill vacancies, the general rule was 
that writs should be issued by the governor upon address of 
the assembly.' A law enacted in Virginia in 1763 seems to 
give the sheriff power to hold a special election on his own 
motion.^ In Pennsylvania it was at first the law that the 
proprietor or his representative should send out writs for 
special elections.'' Finally, however, the secretary issued 
them upon order of the speaker. If the order was not com- 
plied with in two days, the speaker could issue writs under 
his own hand and seal, but in the name of the governor. 
The sheriff was required to hold special elections within five 
days after receipt of the writ.' In Maryland special elections 

1 II Will. Ill, chap. 74, Van Schaack's Laws, 28; compare English Statute, 7 and 
8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, 3; New Jersey, "most public place" in county (12 Geo. 
I, chap. 40, Nevill's Lazvs, 142) ; Virginia, " in those places where county courts 
are held" (20 Car. I, Act i, i Hening, 299; 4 Anne, chap, ii, 3 Hening, 236). 

^ See for Westchester county, New York, " Presbyterian meeting house " (25 
Geo. II, chap. 911; Van Schaack's Laivs, 305, also 281); Philadelphia (6 Geo. 
Ill, chap. 8, § 12; Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323) ; North Carolina {Laws, 1715, 
2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213; 8 Geo. II, chap, ii, Appendix B of this 
work.) 

^21 Geo. II, chap. 875, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 281. 

* South Carolina, Act 1716, no. 365, § xviii, 2 Cooper, 683) ; Georgia (Act June 
1 761); Semble, Virginia (11 Will. Ill, chap, ii, 3 Hening, 172). 

*3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 17, 7 Hening, 519. 

'^ Laws, 1700, chap. 28, incorporated by reference in Penn's Charter of Privi- 
leges, and published in Appendix B of the present work. Also Frame of Gov- 
ernment, 1696. 

'4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 



no HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

were called by writs issued by the speaker, withotft regard to 
the time between the test and the return, provided the ordi- 
nary notice was given in counties and a notice of four days 
in cities and boroughs.^ In New Jersey under Carteret's 
rule, the governor was empowered, in 1664 to issue writs for 
special elections to fill vacancies caused by the death of 
members.^ Under the royal government of the last named 
province, a law was passed declaring that any member by 
accepting an office of profit from the crown or the governor 
vacated his seat, and a new writ issued just as if he were 
actually dead. In such a case, however, he could be re- 
chosen.^ This is an English custom in existence at the 
present day. 

In regard to the calling of special elections the English 
practice was as follows : In case a seat in the House of Com- 
mons became vacant during a recess of Parliament, the 
speaker issued a warrant to the clerk of the crown and the 
latter sent out a writ.^ If a vacancy occurred during a 
session of Parliament, an address of the House to the king 
was necessary. 

§ 2. Publication of the Wi'it. In order to give the voters 
due notice of the time and place of an election, various 
methods of publishing the writs were employed. Thus the 
Hartford Constitution of 1638 provided that immediately on 
receipt of his warrant for the election of deputies, the con- 
stable of each town should go from house to house and give 
distinct notice, or else should publish his writ in some as- 
sembly.^ No summons was needed for the general court of 
election at Hartford.*" In Massachusetts under the royal 

^ 3 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap, i, § 2, Bacon's Laws. 

^Learning and Spicer, 19. 

^ 3 Geo. II, chap. 2, Allinson's Laws, 83; Nevill's Latvs, 195. 

* See Slatute 10 Geo. Ill, chap. 41. 

^ I Connectictd Colonial Records, 21. ^ Session Laws, 30. 



IN THE AM ERIC AX COIOXIES. j I j 

government the sheriffs sent out precepts to the selectmen 
of the towns in their counties, commanding them to assem- 
ble the voters and proceed to the election of representatives.' 

The method to be followed in New York was prescribed 
more in detail. Each sheriff endorsed upon the writ the day 
of its receipt. Within six days thereafter he was required 
to give public notice of the time and place of the election. 
He also gave six days' notice to each constable in his baili- 
wick, and the latter was required to publish his precept at 
the most frequented place of each town.^ This method of 
publishing a writ by means of precepts addressed by the 
election officer to the local officials of his district, also pre- 
vailed in England.'' Notice was given in New Jersey at least 
twenty days before the election, by the sheriff of each county 
posting advertisements at three of the best known places 
in his bailiwick;* while in Georgia a notice of ten days must 
be given by affixing proclamations in one or more " noted" 
places in each parish, district, town or village returning a 
member.^ 

For special elections in Pennsylvania and Delaware, an ef- 
fective method of publication was provided, in order, we may 
suppose, to compensate for the short notice of two days that 
was permitted. The writ was to be read by the sheriff or 
his deputy in the capital town, or in the most public place in 
his bailiwick, between the hours of ten in the morning and 
two in the afternoon. Immediately upon receipt of the writ, 
notices were posted upon some tree or house in the way 
leading from each township or precinct to the place of 
election, and upon every court house and " fixed meeting 

^ Lazvs, 1692-3, chap. 36, i Ames and Goodell, 80; 1692-3, chap. 38, ibid, 89. 
■^11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, Van Schaack's laws. 

* Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25. 

* 12 Geo. II, chap. 40, Nevill's laws, 142. 

^ Act June 9th, 1761, which is published in Appendix B of tfce present work. 



I 1 2 HIST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

house for Religious worship " in the county. Every con- 
stable was to receive due notice and was required to promul- 
gate the same immediately/ 

In Virginia the original custom was for the sheriff to give 
six days' notice of an election by going about from house to 
house vv^ithin ten days after he received his writ.'^ Strange 
as it may seem, the method of summons was found to be de- 
fective, and in 1662 a more thorough system was provided. 
Within three days after receiving his writ, each sheriff de- 
livered a copy of the same, endorsed with the time and 
the place of the election, to the minister or the reader of 
every parish in his county. According to the provisions of 
the law, the writ was then read to the people in every church 
and chapel after divine service, and the reading was re- 
peated weekly until the time appointed for the election. 
The ministers must return their copies to the sheriff with an 
attestation that they had performed the duty required. 
Heavy fines were imposed for neglect,^ . In Maryland elec- 
tion proclamations were read and posted in all churches, 
chapels, and other public places,* while in North Carolina 
they were made on three successive Sundays immediately 
after divine service.* Publication was effected in South 
Carolina by the managers posting a notice in writing on the 
door of a church, or if there was no church, at some public 
place, three Sundays before an election.*' This method of 
giving notice is instructive as showing that the Southern colo- 
nists seldom came together except on Sunday, and then for 
religious purposes. 

^ Laws 1700, chap. 28, published in Appendix B of this work; 4 Anne, chap. 
129, FrankUn ed., 1742, 67. 
''■ 20 Car. I, Act. i; 5-6 Com., Act vii; i Hening, 299, 411. 
^ 14 Car. II., Act 50, 2 Hening, 82; 4 Anne, chap, ii, 3 Hening, 236. 
* 8 Geo. I, chap. 42; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Laws. 
^33 Geo. II, chap, i, § vi, Davis ed., 1773, 247. 
*Act 1716, no. 365, § XV, 2 Cooper, 683. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. j jo 

When a writ was issued for a special election in Virginia, 
it became the duty of the sheriff to send a notice of the time 
and place to every freeholder in his county, and the election 
must be held as soon as possible after the receipt of the 
writ.' 

§ 3. Hours of Election. In England, a statute of 23 Henry 
VP had provided that county courts for the election of 
knights of the shire must be held " betwixt the hour of 8 and 
the hour of 1 1 before noon." This practice of requiring an 
election to be held within certain hours of the day prevailed 
to some extent in this country. Thus in Connecticut I find 
that the semi-annual elections of deputies in the towns were 
held at nine o'clock.'^ In Massachusetts, however, certain 
hours were fixed for the nomination of assistants ; and in 
1680 a law was enacted requiring the courts of election to 
begin at eight in the morning.* No enactments except those 
of Massachusetts have been found which tend to prove that 
it was customary in New England to begin the sessions of 
the general courts of election at any particular hour of the 
day. In West Jersey, we find that elections were to begin 
at nine o'clock,^ and in New Jersey at any time between the 
hours of ten and twelve.'' 

In Pennsylvania and Delaware," the hours of ten in the 
morning and two in the afternoon were made the limits of 
♦time within which an election must be held. In North 
Carolina it was customary to have a morning session, begin- 
ning before ten o'clock and lasting until one, and then in 
the afternoon the polls were open from half past two until 

' II Will. Ill, chap. 2; 4 Anne, chap. 2, § viii, 3 Hening, 172, 236. 
'^ Chap. 14. ^ Session Laws, 30. 

*5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 292. ^Learning and Spicer, 385. 

'" 12 Geo. I, chap. 40; Nevill's Laws, 142. 

■ 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 7 Geo. II, chap. 61 a, Franklin and 
Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 



I 1 4 HISTOR V OF ELECTIONS 

sunset, unless the candidates consented to have them closed 
before that time,^ 

For a time two sessions of the court of election were held 
in South Carolina, nam.ely : from eight to twelve in the 
morning and from two until six in the afternoon, for two 
consecutive days.^ After 1716 there was but one session, 
and the polls were, according to successive enactments, to 
remain open from sunrise till sunset,^ from seven a. m. till 
seven p. m.,* and, finally, from nine till four.^ In Georgia 
the hours were from nine in the morning until six in the 
afternoon, although the poll might be concluded two hours 
after the last voter appeared, or at any other time if the can- 
didates present consented.*^ In the last named province, 
adjournments were permitted at convenient hours, and, 
unless a scrutiny were demanded, elections were not to con- 
tinue for more than ten days. 

§ 4. Election Officers. In considering the topic of election 
ofhcers, it may be laid down as the general rule that, outside 
of New England, the sherifT, by virtue of his capacity as head 
of the county, acted as the presiding and returning officer at 
all elections.' The provost marshal was the manager of 
elections in Georgia,* and for a while in North Carolina.'* In 
South Carolina the size of the counties was so great that 
electors were forced to travel long distances in order to vote. 

^17 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis and Swann, 177; 33 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis ed., 
1773, 247. This last act seems to require the polls to be kept open until sunset. 

^ Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 249. '^ Kc\. 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 

*Act 1719, no. 394, 3 Cooper, 50. ° Act 1721, no. 446, 3 Cooper, 135- 

"Act June 9th, 1761. 

■'New York: 11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, Van Schaack's Laivs, 28; New Jersey : 
12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142; Maryland: Maryland Archives, ^ As- 
se77ibly, 60; Virginia: 14 Car. I, Act xix, i Hening, 227, etc; North Carolina: £7 
Geo. II, chap, i, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177; South Carolina: Act 1704, no. 
227, 2 Cooper, 249. 

8 Act June gth, 1761. ^ 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. uq 

Accordingly the parish was constituted the election district, 
and the whole management was placed in the hands of the 
church-wardens, although the governor could appoint substi- 
tutes for them. Surveyors were ordered to settle disputes, 
by laying out the boundaries of the parishes. The repeal of 
this law by the proprietors caused the revolution of 17 19, 
and it was natural that it should be revived by the royal 
assembly of 1 720.^ We find in those New York manors, which 
v/ere represented in the assembly, that a returning offtcer was 
vested with the powers of a sheriff in the matter of elec- 
tions,'^ while in Maryland like powers were exercised by the 
mayor, recorder and aldermen of cities and boroughs.'^ In 
the latter province, elections were held in full county court,* 
and " in such manner and form as the laws of England and 
this province doe direct and provide." For this purpose the 
sheriff was empowered to summon four or more commis- 
sioners of his county, who, with the clerk, were to be mem- 
bers of the court." Some years later the court consisted of 
three or more justices of the peace, "whereof one to be of 
the quorum," together with the clerk of the county court.** 
In Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina if the sheriff 
was unable to attend, the coroner was authorized to act as 
manager of elections.' In Pennsylvania the sheriff and his 
deputy or the coroner and his appointee, and in case of the 
failure of all these, two freeholders elected by the majority 

^Act 1716, DO. 365, 2 Cooper, 683; Act 1719, no. 394, 3 Cooper, 50. 

"^ 8 Geo. II, chap. 607, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 183. '^ 8 Geo. I, chap. 42. 

* " Electionem tuam in pleno comitatu tuo factam," as required by English 
statute of 7 Henry IV, chap. 15. 

= Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Assembly, 60. 

^ 8 Geo. I, chap. 42, 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Latvs. 

' Pennsylvania : 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; Delawaxe : 7 Geo. II, 
chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147; North 
Carolina: 12 Geo. Ill, Davis ed., 1773, 505. 



J 1 5 HI ST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

of the electors present, were constituted judges of the elec- 
tion.' 

Besides the judges already mentioned, Pennsylvania and 
Delaware provided officers known as inspectors, whose chief 
duty was to judge of the qualifications of voters. At first 
these inspectors were nominated by a majority of the elec- 
tors,^ and their names were successively proposed by the 
judges at the place of election until a certain number^ had 
been chosen by a fair majority of votes. The inspectors 
were put under oath and were required to duly attend the 
election throughout its continuance. Besides judging the 
qualifications of electors it was their duty "to well and truly 
and faithfully assist the sheriff, coroner and other person who 
shall by virtue of the before recited act, officiate as judge of 
the said Elections ; to prevent all Frauds and Deceits what- 
soever of Electors or others in the management or carrying 
on of the same, and in causing the poll or votes at such elec- 
tions to be taken and cast up according to law."^ In order to 
insure a satisfactory performance of their duties, it was neces^ 
sary that the inspectors should be thoroughly acquainted with 
the circumstances of all the voters, and for this reason the 
statutes required that care should be taken to secure in- 
spectors from different parts of the county. 

But as a matter of fact this was not done, and in 1739 it 
was found necessary to so change the method of selecting 
these officers so that the desired result might be attained. 

^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; Delaware; 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, 
Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. In Delaware, the 
justices of the peace seem to have been judges in case of the failure of the coro- 
ner or sheriff to act; 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 

'•^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

^ Eight for Philadelphia, six for Philadelphia county, and four for each of the 
other two counties. 

■^13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 346. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I I7 

For this purpose each justice of the peace was re- 
quired to divide his county into eight parts or hundreds, 
as nearly equal in size as was possible. On receiving 
official notice of the division, it became the duty of the 
sheriff to inform the constable of each town. The free- 
holders met in their towns on September 25th of each 
year, at a place appointed by the constable, or in case 
of his failure to act, by the overseer of the poor, and 
proceeded to ballot for inspectors to serve at the reg- 
ular election which took place on the ist of October. At 
these elections, which were held between the hours of nine 
in the morning and two in the afternoon,' the constables and 
freeholders acted as judges. One "able and discreet free- 
holder, who may be supposed to be best acquainted with the 
Estates and Circumstances of the Inhabitants," was chosen 
from each township to act as inspector. The names of all 
so chosen were to be returned to the sheriff of the county 
before nine o'clock on the day of the regular election." 
Upon receiving the reports of the the several constables, the 
sheriff was required to call in four freeholders, and in their 
presence write the names of all the nominees on " papers cut 
and folded. Sec, as near as may be of equal size and big- 
ness." Those returned from each district of the county were 
placed in a separate box, and then, " some indifferent per- 
son" drew a name from each receptacle. The persons whose 
names were drawn, if they were present at the election, 
served as inspectors and were proclaimed as such to the as- 
sembled voters. In Philadelphia a similar course was pur- 
sued by the inhabitants of each ward. The names of four 

'Nine and three: 16 Geo. II, chap. 351, Franklin ed., 1742, 546. A later act 
fixed September 27th as the day, and from twelve till five as the hours in the coun- 
ties, and from ten till four in Philadelphia. 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, Hall and Sellers 
ed., 1775, 323. 

^October ist. 



I I 8 HI ST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

persons were drawn on the day of election, and they were 
the inspectors for the districts, while the six persons whose 
names remained in the boxes were the inspectors for Phila- 
delphia/ 

A similar system prevailed in Delaware,^ M^here the inspec- 
tors were judges concurrently with the sheriff or coroner, as 
the case might be, although in case of an equal division of 
opinion the latter had a double vote.' As was originally the 
rule in Pennsylvania, the Delaware inspectors were at first 
chosen at the county elections. It was not until about 1766 
that they were elected in the towns. The time appointed for 
that purpose was the fifteenth of September, or the following 
day, if the fifteenth fell on Sunday. The collector or the 
overseer of the poor, assisted by two freeholders, acted as 
judges of these town or hundred elections, which took place 
between the hours of twelve o'clock noon and six o'clock in 
the afternoon. Ten days' notice was given by putting up 
advertisements throughout the hundreds. The collector, or 
overseer, as the case might be, together with the judges, 
issued certificates of election to the persons chosen, and 
these were presented to the sheriff before ten o'clock in the 
morning of the day appointed for the election of representa- 
tives. The sherifif publicly proclaimed the names of those 
chosen for inspectors, and if any of them failed to appear, 
their places were filled by the votes of the freeholders 
attending the election from the hundred whose inspector was 
absent.* 

The personal knowledge of these inspectors does not ap- 

' 12 Geo. II, chap. 345; 16 Geo. II, chap. 351, Franklin ed., 1742, 514, 546: 
19 Geo. II, chap. 2; 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8; 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 13, Hall and Sellers 
ed., 1775, 202, 323. 

'•* 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 188; Adams ed., 1797, 429. 

^ 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, § i; Adams ed., 1797, 500. 

*6 Geo. Ill, chap. 188; Adams ed., 1797, 429. 



IN THE A.MERICAN COLONIES. i jq 

pear to have been relied on as much as the language of the 
statutes would seem to indicate. They had power to ex- 
amine voters on oath in regard to their qualifications, and 
were also assisted by separate alphabetical lists of the names 
and rates of all the taxables taken from the last assessment 
of each town, ward or district. These lists were to be fur- 
nished to the sheriff at least one day before the election by 
the commissioners of the county, at a compensation of half 
a crown for each list, but under penalty of fifty pounds for 
failure to deliver them.' 

In some of the colonies inspectors were appointed in the 
interest of the candidates rather than in that of the govern- 
ment. Thus in New York, New Jersey and the Carolinas, 
each candidate was empowered to nominate and the sheriff 
to appoint as many inspectors as there were clerks to take 
the poll.' Such was also the custom in England.^ 

When a poll was required the sheriff was usually author- 
ized to employ clerks appointed and sworn by himself. It 
was usually left to the discretion of the sheriff to designate 
the number of clerks, although in New Jersey* the candidates 
seem to have had power to appoint them ; while at one time 
in Pennsylvania^ the inspectors decided on the number. A 
later statute*^ in the last named province required the sheriff 
to appoint two or more clerks of the age of twenty-one 

1 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, § 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 223. 

^ New York: 11 Will. III., chap. 74, § 5, Van Schaack's Laws, 28; New 
Jersey: 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laivs, 142; North Carolina: Act 1715,2 
North Carolina Colonial Records, 213; 17 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis and Swann, 
177; 33 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis ed., 1773, 247. This last act seems to allow 
but two inspectors, who were to be appointed by the candidates collectively, or 
on their refusal to do so, by the sheriff. 

^ 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, * 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 

^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

"6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, §§ i, 3, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 



1 2 o ^^IS TOR Y OF RLE C TI ONS 

years/ That the candidates themselves also had a certain 
amount of official capacity at elections is shown by the fact 
that their consent was sometimes necessary in order to close 
or adjourn the poll.^ 

For the election of deputies and the collecting of proxies 
in New England, the town was the unit; and this was 
possibly due to the lack, at an early date, of an efficient 
county organization. The duties of an election officer were 
therefore performed by the constable of each town/'^ In 
Rhode Island the chief officer of the town^ was perhaps the 
town clerk, ^ but at a later date the whole management of 
elections in Rhode Island was placed in the hands of a 
grand committee of both houses of the legislature." Under 
the royal government of Massachusetts Bay writs were 
issued to the sheriffs of the counties, but the direct manage- 
ment of elections was in the hands of the constables and 
selectmen of the several towns.'' 

§ 5. Nomination of. Candidates. In a few of the colonies 
we find that a more or less thorough system of nominating 
candidates for offices of a general character prevailed. 
There was nothing resembling the modern method of nomi- 
nation by opposing -parties, but the plan followed seems to 
have been practically a preliminary election for the purpose 

' See also New York, 11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 5, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 28. (In 
this and other respects this law was modelled on the English statute of 7 and 8 
Will. Ill, chap. 25.) Virginia, 11 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172. 

^New York, 11 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 7, Van Schaack's Laws, 2?,; Georgia, 
Act June 9th, 1761. 

•^Massachusetts, see Title Election, Laws, ed., 1660, 27, ed., 1814, 105; Con- 
necticut, 1 Connecticut Colonial Records, 21, Session Laws, 30. 

* I Rhode Isla7id Colonial Records, 150. 

*4 Rhode Lsland Colonial Records, 208; Franklin ed., 1730, i. 

* Hall's Code, 1 767, Title Elections, 78. 

''Laws, 1692-3, chaps. 36, 38, i Ames and Goodell, 80, 88, 89. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



121 



of reducing the whole number of eligible candidates by a 
process of exclusion. 

The first definite trace of such a system appears in the 
Hartford Constitution of 1638, in which it was provided 
that no person could be newly chosen magistrate unless his 
name had been proposed at the general court in September 
and voted upon at the regular court of elections in April. 
For these purposes each of the towns, through its deputies, 
nominated two persons, while the court added as many as 
it judged requisite.^ Something similar appears to have 
been done in New Haven, for there is a provision in the 
statute book which was prepared about 1648, to the effect 
that " when any man of what Plantation soever, shall be first 
proposed for Magistracy within this jurisdiction, reasonable 
notice shall be first given to all the Plantations of such a 
purpose or desire, that all the Freemen may duly consider 
or informe themselves."'' This law was amended by an act 
of 1662, providing that in case no nominations were made 
in time from the towns, " as an addition to those now in 
trust," the freemen present at the election could nominate 
and choose the magistrates.'^ The records of the New 
Haven jurisdiction prior to 1653 are lost, and this accounts 
for the fact that no further mention of the law as given in 
the statute book, has been found. The act of 1662 is de- 
clared to be " an addition to y^ printed law for y'^ nomina- 
tion of m^agistrates." 

Under the Connecticut charter the Hartford practice ap- 
pears to have been continued, and we find that candidates 
were nominated " by papers" at the October court, in order 
to be voted upon at the court of election in May."* In 1689 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 

^2 A'ew Haven Colonial Records, iv; Laws, ed., 1656, ibid., 567, 8. 

^ Ibid., 439, 479. ■'2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 141. 



J 2 2 I'^IS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

a different method was introduced, which was practically a 
double election in that the freemen both selected the nomi- 
nees and voted for the persons nominated when these were 
finally put up for election. At nine o'clock in the morning 
of the third Tuesday in" March of each year, the freemen 
gathered at the meeting houses of their respective towns. 
Each voter there gave the names of twenty persons whom 
he judged qualified to stand for election in the following 
May to the local commissioner, justice of the peace, con- 
stable or some townsman, whose duty it was to seal them 
in a package and deliver them to the constable of the 
county town. The latter was required to take the ballots 
himself or else send them to Hartford by a person a.ppointed 
for that purpose by the constables of the county. The mes- 
sengers from all parts of the colony met in the chamber of 
the general court on the last Tuesday in March, and were 
sworn as canvassers by an assistant or by the secretary of 
the colony. The ballots were then compared and the names 
of the twenty persons who had the most votes were returned 
to the towns as the nominees from whom the governor, dep- 
uty governor and assistants were to be chosen.^ 

Three years afterwards the old method was restored and 
the nominations were made by the general court.'' In 1696 
we find tv/enty-four persons were nominated as assistants.^ 
In 1697 ^ Isw was passed requiring the constable, without 
awaiting special orders, to call the freemen together on the 
third Tuesday in September, and after electing deputies, have 
them hand in the names of twenty persons " fairly written 
upon a piece of paper." Instead of a separate canvass by 
representatives of the counties as in 1689, it was provided 
that the names of the persons voted for, and the number of 
votes received by each, should be entered by the election 

^4 Connecticut Colonial Records, II. ''■Ibid, 8l. ^ Ibid., lye. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 123 

officer " upon office oath," and a copy of such entry sent 
sealed, to the general court at its October meeting, by means 
of the representative of the town. There the votes were 
canvassed and the twenty persons having the highest 
number were declared to be nominated. Their names were 
sent to the towns by the secretary of the colony, together 
with the laws passed by the general court, although afterwards 
he was ordered to have the list of names, as well as the laws, 
prepared by the public printer for distribution.' Until after 
1 707 the governor and deputy governor as well as the mag- 
istrates could be chosen only from the persons nominated.'^ 
It will be seen that under this system electors had at least 
six months within which to decide for what candidates they 
should vote. 

Massachusetts was the only other colony which developed 
a successful method of nominations, dnd it was there 
applied only to candidates for the office of assistant. As 
early as 1631 we find a faint suggestion of nominations in 
the order of the general court that the commons should pro- 
pose persons whom they desired to have chosen as assist- 
ants, and "if it be doubtfull wheth'' it be the greaf pte of 
the comons or not, it shalbe putt to the poU."^ In May, 
1640, a method was introduced similar to that provided by 
the Hartford Constitution two years before. The towns were 
requested, when electing deputies, to give in the names of 
those whom they wished to have chosen as magistrates, and 
the deputies were required to "set downe the names of such 
as shalbee nominated & the certaine number of votes which 
every man so named shall have & shall make a true returne 
■ of the same at the next- General Court." The magistrates 

I4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 223; Session Laivs, ed. 171 5, 30; ed. 1 750, 
ed. 1754, ed. 1764, 45. 

'■^5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 39; Session Laws, 1715, 133. 
^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, S7. 



124 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



and the deputies canvassed the votes and returned to the 
towns the names of those who had received the largest num- 
ber. Only persons so nominated could be voted for at the 
court of election.^ 

Four years after this a system very much like the modern 
State convention was introduced. Delegates from each of 
the towns of the colony met at Salem in April and agreed 
upon a certain number of the " most able and fit men," 
whose names were certified to the colonial secretary as the 
persons to stand for election as assistants.'^ 

In 1649 another method was devised which, with a few 
modifications, remained in use until the surrender of the 
charter, and which, as we have seen, was used in Connecticut' 
from 1689 till 1692. The freemen of the various towns were 
called together by the constables during the last week of the 
ninth month (November) in order to give their votes on- 
separate pieces of paper for the twenty persons whom they 
wished to have nominated. But one vote could be cast for 
each candidate by any one person. After the voting was 
over, the ballots were carried to the shire town by a person 
selected by the freemen. On the " last fourth day of the 
week in the first month (March)," at twelve o'clock, the 
deputies from the several towns met and appointed one of 
their number to carry the votes of the entire shire to Boston 
"on the second third day of the second month (April)." 
These commissioners from the several shires, together with 
the magistrates, " opened and perused " the ballots. The 
twenty persons having the most votes were then declared 
the nominees, and their names were certified in writing by 
the commissioners to the several constables, and by them 
to the freemen.'* 

^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 293. ^ 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 21. 
^3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 177; 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. 
i, 326. . 



AV THE AMERICA.V COLOXFES. 125 

The needless precaution of having the nominations in the 
towns take place in November and lie over till the following 
March, was done away with in 1652 by an order of the court 
which fixed as the date of town meetings the second week of 
the first month (March).' Six years later another order 
required that but fourteen persons should be nominated, on 
account of " some inconveniences in the annual choice due 
to the large number of twenty."'' 

The final form of the nomination system was that the 
town meetings should be held on the second Tuesday in 
March due notice and warning- having been given to the 
freemen. Each elector could vote for twenty persons whose 
names might be " on one list clearly distinguished," and "in 
distinct papers," while no person could be voted for twice, 
except under a penalty of ten pounds for each offense. 
There were to be two commissioners instead of one for each 
shire, and they were to serve under oath. At the canvass 
all lists containing more than twenty names, or with the 
name of the same person occurring more than once, were 
to be rejected, and the twenty-six persons receiving the 
most votes were to be nominees.^ 

In the elaborate series of fundamental constitutions drawn 
up in 1683 for East Jersey, there was a provision for the 
nomination of candidates by a method that combined in a 
singular manner the Greek notion of election by means of 
the lot and the more modern idea of election by the free choice 
of the voters. The third clause of this constitution provided 
that, "for the full prevention of all indirect means" the 
names of those persons in each county that were eligible to 
the great council should be placed on pieces of parchment, 

' 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 280, Laws, chap, xl, § 3, ed., 1660, 27; ed., 
1814, 105. 
- 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. i, 347. 
^ 1680, 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 292. 



126 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

prepared the day before the election by the sheriff and his 
clerk. On the day appointed, these pieces of parchment 
were put into a box and a boy under ten years of age drew 
'out fifty of them. The fifty so drawn were then put back in 
the box and twenty-five of them drawn out. The twenty- 
five tickets remaining in the box contained the names of the 
nominators. In case the county in question was entitled to 
three members on the council board, the nominators were, 
by a plurality of votes, to select twelve persons from the 
twenty-five whose names had been drawn, and these were to 
be the candidates to be voted for at the next election. If the 
county were entitled to but two members, only eight persons 
were to be selected. Before proceeding to their task, the 
twenty-five nominators were to solemnly declare before the 
sheriff that they would not name any one "known to them 
to be guilty for the time, or to have been guilty for a year 
before, of adultery, whoredom, drunkenness, or any such im- 
morality, or who is insolvent or a fool."^ The East Jersey 
method of nomination was probably derived from the " lot 
and suffrage" system proposed in Harrington's Oceana. 
The English philosopher used the lot to determine who 
should propose the competitors, and the suffrage to decide 
which of them should be elected.^ 

With these exceptions the writer has found no trace of 
anything like a system of regular nominations. In the laws 
of those colonies where the English method of elections was 
closely followed, the word candidate is frequently used. In 
Georgia the act of 1761 speaks of a "person presented or 
presenting himself as a candidate," and from this language 
it might be inferred that a method of nomination by petition 
may have been in vogue. The same quotation also shows 

'Fundamental Constitutions, iii, Learning and Spicer, 153; i New Jersey 
Archives, 397. 

^ Oceana, 80, 106, Harrington's works, ed. Toland, 1771. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 127 

that a person could nominate himself. There is no positive 
authorization of a hustings platform on which the candidates 
sat and from which they addressed the assembled voters, 
after having been nominated by one elector and seconded 
by another, as was the custom in England.' 

§ 6. Manner of Voting. {Personal or by Proxy. ^ The 
five older New England governments which have been 
classed in the present work under the general title of the 
Puritan colonies, developed a method of voting Vi^hich they 
called the proxy system. Unhke the method of nomination 
and the means employed in the election of the assistants, 
which were peculiar to one or two of these colonies, the 
proxy system was common to them all, and is found only in 
this group. Though it originated in Massachusetts it spread 
rapidly and Avas developed on the same general lines in the 
other New England jurisdictions. Still, as each colony fol- 
lowed its own peculiar methods in regard to the details of 
the process, it will be necessary to study the history of all 
five with reference to this subject. 

In the preceding pages it has been mentioned that at first 
all freemen were required to attend in person at the general 
courts, whether they were held for legislative purposes or 
for the election of magistrates. It has also been shown that 
it became necessary in the course of time to permit the free- 
men to be represented by deputy on all matters except the 
annual election of officers, which was regarded as a privilege 
too precious to be delegated." As the settlements increased 
in number and the colonies in extent of territory, it became 
more and more necessary to devise some plan, in order to 
save the freemen the inconvenience and trouble required by 
a journey to the capital town, and at the same time perm.it 

'See 2 De Franqueville, Le Gouvernment et le Parlevient Brittanique, /^i"] . 
The modern method of nomination by petition is described in 423 et seq. 
'^ See pp. 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, atite. 



I 2 8 /^/-i' TOJ?y OF ELEC TIONS 

them to retain their right to vote at the general court of 
election. It was for these purposes that the proxy system 
was devised, and by this means the identical ballots of the 
freemen were still cast at the general court. Because it was 
desired to preserve the character of the general court of elec- 
tions in Massachusetts as the one and only place where 
votes could be legally cast for the officers of the colony, the 
simpler method of counting the votes cast in the towns, and 
merely reporting the totals to the general court, was never 
introduced, although we have seen that such a plan was used 
in Connecticut for the nomination of magistrates.^ Freemen 
were still allowed, and even encouraged, to cast their votes 
in person, although, as may be imagined, the increasing 
number of voters caused such a proceeding to become very 
disorderly and inconvenient. The natural result, therefore, 
was to abolish the practice of personal voting, and cause all 
ballots to be handed in at the " proxings," Avhich took place 
in the towns. Massachusetts in 1641, and again in 1663, 
made an unsuccessful move in this direction.^ Had not her 
charter been taken away, she would doubtless ultimately 
have prohibited freemen from voting at the general court of 
election except by proxy. This result Connecticut reached 
in 1750,^ and Rhode Island not till 1760.* 

Although, as we shall see in due course, the absence of a 
provision requiring a voter to sign his name to his proxy in 
one or two colonies brought about a secret ballot, yet the 
writer believes that this result was only incidental. Secrecy 
was the end especially desired and attained by the corn and 
beans ballot of Massachusetts and the balls and boxes of 
West Jersey. That the proxy system was really a subter- 

^ See pp. 122, 123, ante. 

^i Massachusetts Colonial Records, 333; 4 MassacJmsetts Colonial Records, pt. 
ii, 86. 

2 Session Laws, 1750. * 6 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 256. 



IN THE AM ERICA iV COLONIES. j29 

fiige and was not strictly legal is shown by a report of Lord 
Bellmont on the condition of Rhode Island in the early part 
of the eighteenth century. He complained of the proxy as 
a violation of the charter, which he construed to mean an 
election of all freemen present in the assembly/ a point on 
which the colonists themselves were not free from doubt,^ 
The exercise of a public franchise by proxy was illegal at 
common law. 

In the following pages, the history of the proxy system 
will be followed out wherever it existed, commencing with 
Massachusetts, where it was first introduced, and concluding 
with Connecticut, where it reached its final development. 

Among the records of the general court of the Boston 
colony, as early as 1635-6, we find an order that certain 
towns should have "libertie to stay soe many of their free- 
men att home for the safety of their towne as they judge 
needful, & that the said ffreemen that are appoyncted by the 
towne to stay att home shall have liberty for this court to 
send their voices by pxy."-^ This law, which affected only a 
few towns, was made general the following year, when, on 
account of the " great danger and damage that may accrue 
to the State by all the freemens leaveing their plantations to 
come to the place of elections," it was ordered : 

"That it shalbe free & lawfull for all freemen to send their votes 
for elections by proxie the next Generall court in May, and so for 
hereafter, w'^'^ shall be done in this manner : The deputies w'^'^ 
shalbee chosen shall cause the freemen of their townes to be assem- 
bled & then to take such freemens votes as please to send by pxie 
for every magistrate & seale them vp, severally subscribing the 
magistrates name on the backside & soe to bring them to the court 

' 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 385 et seq. 
2 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 29, 39, 62. 
^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 166. 



130 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



sealedj w* an open roule of the names of the freemen that so send 
by pxie."^ 

The method thus prescribed was followed in general terms 
by all the Puritan colonies, although, as we shall see, further 
elaborations were made in regard to details. 

" It being found by experience that the court of elections had 
neede to be brought into some better order, the freemen growing to 
so great a multitude as will be overburdensome to the country & the 
day appointed for that service will not afford sufficient time for the 
same, and the way of p'xies (as it is called) is found subject to many 
miscarriages and lorse of opportunities for advice in the choyse :" — 
for these reasons a substitute for the proxy system was 
proposed in 1641. The freemen of each town which sent a 
deputy regularly to the general court were to hold a meet- 
ing upon the day of election, and choose one delegate for 
every ten of their voters. Each of these delegates was 
to go to Boston with power to vote on behalf of those 
joining in his election, and " in this way to bee at liberty 
whether they will joyne altogether or vote severally, 
so as every one that hath ten votes shall be an elector, 
and matrats and elders to put in their votes as other free- 
men."'^ This plan did not meet with the approval of the 
towns, and the former method was continued.^ Some years 
later the means to be employed in collecting the proxies at 
the towns received further elaboration. The freemen were 
to deliver them in the presence of the deputy and constable, 
and these ofificers sealed them up " in distinct papers." In 
small villages that were not represented at the general court 
the constable and two or three of the leading freemen were 
empowered to collect the proxies and deliver them, sealed 
up, to the deputy of the nearest town, whose duty it was to 

^ March, 1636-7, i Massachusetts Colonial Records, i88. "-Ibid., 333. 

^ See also 2 Winthrop's N'ew England, 311. 



/A' THE AMERICAN COLONIES. j^I 

carry them to the court of election. In addition, it was pro- 
vided that only those made free at the court of election 
should deliver their votes "at the dores."^ 

Another attempt was made in 1663 to put an end to the 
proxy system. The constable was ordered to call the free- 
men together in their town meetings as before, but no one 
could hand in the proxy of another freeman unless the latter 
were present or sent his proxy " sealed- up in a note directed 
to the Deputy or Townsmen met together for that work." 
This shows in effect that a system of sub-proxy existed. By 
means of this it was possible for the elector to vote, although 
he might be absent from the town meeting, as well as from 
the general court. According to the law at present under 
consideration, no one who was not a member of the general 
court would be allowed to vote in person at the general court 
of election. This provision, however, was found unsatisfac- 
tory, and it was repealed within a year after its adoption.'- 

Again in 1679—80 a law was passed with a view of saving 
confusion on election day. The proxies were to be collected 
in the towns on the second Tuesday in April. The ballots 
cast for each officer were separate and distinct, except that 
the names of the twenty assistants were to be put on a 
single sheet of paper "cut almost asunder betwixt each 
name." The latter would seem to indicate a crude form of 
the modern perforated ballot. All proxies were to be taken 
to Boston on the Monday before the general election, and 
at one o'clock in the afternoon of that day they were opened 

^ 2. Massachtisetts Colonial Records, 210; Zatc^, ed. 1660, 27; ed. 1814, 106. 
In this as in many other instances the language of the records differs from that em- 
ployed in the statute books. It is frequently a difficult matter to find the authority 
among the records for the year in which the foot-notes of the statute books de- 
clare that a particular law was enacted. Many of the statements in regard to 
Massachusetts during the course of the present work are the result of a combina- 
tion of the matter derived from the several sources quoted. 

^^4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 86, 134. 



132 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



and sorted in the presence of all the officers of the colony by 
tellers who were under oath. When the canvass had been 
completed the proxies cast for each person were sealed up 
in separate packages, endorsed "on the backside" with the 
name of the candidate and the number of proxies cast for 
him. Freemen who so desired could still vote in person at 
the regular court of election held the following Wednesday.' 

The system prescribed by this law does not appear to have 
been successful, although it would seem that it made per- 
sonal attendance still possible, and at the same time greatly 
simplified the procedure at the court of election. In Octo- 
ber, 1680, a law was passed requiring that town meetings 
should be held on the* Wednesday before election, and re- 
viving in substance the system originally introduced by the 
general orders of \6'^6—'j and 1647.^ We may accordingly 
conclude that in spite of all its disadvantages," Massachusetts, 
after trying a number of plans, came to the conclusion that 
rather than debar the freemen from their privilege of voting 
in person it was better to keep up the unwieldy proxy system 
and endure the confusion that resulted on the election day. 

The first appearance of the proxy system in the Plymouth 
colony was in 1647, when it was provided that "for the 
avoiding of travel 'and charge, the freemen of the towne of 
Rehoboth" should be permitted to send their votes by 
proxy, provided these were given in at a town meeting and 
immediately sealed up. They were to be carried to the 
court of election by the committees or by the grand jurymen. 
Still " Rehoboth's Liberty" was not absolute, for on " weighty 
occasions" the personal attendance of the freemen might be 
required by special warrant.'*^ 

' 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262. ' 2 /^^^^^ 292. 

•^ "Fraud and Deceit;" May 1673, 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. ii, 553. 

*2 Plymouth Colony Records, 118; Brigham, 89. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I-., 

It was not, however, until 1652 that the proxy system was 
extended throughout the colony. It was done at that time 
because " in regard of age, disabillitie of body, vrgent occa- 
sions and other inconveniences that doe accrew, sundrey of 
the freemen" were hindered from putting in a personal ap- 
pearance. The method to be followed was similar to that 
first introduced in Massachusetts, except that the proxies 
were collected at the town meeting in which the deputies 
were chosen rather than on a special occasion, as was the 
custom in Massachusetts. The deputies were required to 
take a list of those who had not given their proxies, as well 
as of those who had.' All the votes for each of^cer (that is, 
for governor, assistant, etc.), were sealed up in separate 
packages at the town meetings. Just before Plymouth was 
annexed to Massachusetts Bay, associates or county magis- 
trates were elected by the freemen of each county. The 
election took place at the county town. The proxy system 
was used and votes were collected at special town meetings 
held " seasonably before," and taken to the county seat by 
commissioners appointed for that purpose.^ 

As no general officers were elected under the provisional 
government of Massachusetts Bay, nothing like a proxy sys- 
tem was needed. Co'unty treasurers were chosen, however, 
by a course of procedure analogous to the method em- 
ployed in the election of Plymouth associates, except that 
personal attendance at the county seat was not permitted. 
All votes were cast in town meeting, sealed up by the con- 
stables, and delivered- by them to the justices of the county 
at the next quarter sessions, when they were counted.'^ It 
seems strange that even under the royal government the 

^11 Plymouth Colotiy Records, 59; Brigham, 94, 108, 258. 

'^ Laws, 1691; Brigham, 237. 

^ Lazvs, 1692-3, chap. 27, § i; Ames and Goodell, 63. 



134 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



more simple method of counting the votes in each town, and 
reporting the number cast for every candidate to the court of 
quarter sessions, was not adopted. 

Long before the Rhode Island charter was granted, the 
principle of voting by proxy was recognized at Newport, as 
is proved by the law of 1639-40, permitting those " neces- 
sarily detained" to send their votes, sealed up, to the judge 
who presided at an election.^ When the confederacy was 
organized in 1647, i^ was provided that " forasmuch as many 
be necessarily detained that they cannot come to the General 
court of Elections that then they shall send their votes sealed 
up unto the said Court, which shall be as effectual as their 
personal appearances."' But a proviso was soon added that 
"None shall bringe them any voates but such as they re- 
ceive from the voaters' hands, and that all voates presented 
shall be filed by the recorder in the presence of the Assem- 
bly."' 

When the charter of 15 Charles II was received there was 
considerable doubt as to whether it would be constitutional 
to continue the proxy method. Accordingly, it was resolved, 
pending a reference of the question to, the authorities in Eng- 
land, to allow only those present in person at the general 
court to vote.^ But the question was taken up again, and it 
was decided to be " a kind of necessity to admitt of voting 
by proxy from such as are not present or cannot conven- 
iantly ther come."^ It was therefore enacted that any free- 
man could vote by proxy, " provided this order noe may 
prejudice or discorradge any who desire to be personally 
present." Proxies must be in writing and delivered, sealed 
up, to a magistrate " in the face of a town meeting" lawfully 
called, upon due notice for that purpose. The names of the 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 98. 

'^ Ibid., i\(). '^ Ibid., 211. 

■* 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 29. ^ Ibid, 39. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 135 

persons voting or voted for (the language of the statute does 
not clearly state which) " must be written at length on the 
backside or the bottom," and all votes must be delivered to 
the assembly. A system of sub-proxy like that which ex- 
isted in Massachusetts seems to have been in use, for in 
case of sickness and necessary absence from the town meet- 
ings an elector could send his vote to a magistrate, and the 
latter was required to place it in the hands of the governor 
or the deputy governor at the court of election.^ 

Whatever may have been the meaning of -the statute just 
quoted, an act was passed in 171 5, requiring that every free- 
man should write his name " at length on the back side of 
his proxy," and all proxies found wanting in this particular 
were to be thrown out when the canvass took place.'^ Some 
years after this a law was passed providing that proxies 
should be collected at the regular town meetings for the elec- 
tion of deputies on the first Tuesday in March, and that 
no proxies could be put in on any other day.^ The following 
year the date was changed to the third Wednesday in April, 
and it was enacted that " no Person Proxing at said Meeting 
should have Liberty of withdrawing his Proxy at the General 
Election."* 

The elector was compelled after 1747 to write the names 
of all the officers he wished to vote for on a single piece 6i 
paper, and when the ballot was cast, to sign it on the back with 
his own name.'^ Until 1760 freemen were permitted to vote 
either in person or by proxy as they preferred. Then it was 
at last recognized that their presence at Newport was "very 
injurious to the interest and public weal of the colony and 

1 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 64; 16 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1730, 1744, i. 

-4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 195, 208. 

' 16 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 255. 

* 17 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 287. ^20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 



I n 5 B-/S TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

occasions a very great loss of people's time at a season of 
the year when their labor is abundantly necessary for pre- 
paring the ground and planting the seed : on which the pro- 
duce of the whole season must depend ; and as all the ends 
of voting for general officers may be as fully attained by the 
freemen's putting in j;heir proxie votes at the town meeting 
in their own towns, appointed by law for that purpose agree- 
able to the ancient and laudable custom of the prudent free- 
men." So, in future, all freemen must vote at their town 
meetings, unless they were members of the assembly, in 
which case they were still permitted to cast their votes at 
the general court. The moderator was ordered to deliver 
all the ballots to the town clerk, who counted the number 
given for each candidate and sent a certificate of the total to 
Newport. As was the case before, the names of the officers 
voted for were placed on a single ticket signed on the back 
by the elector at the time the ballot was cast. Before seal- 
ing them up in a package for transportation to Newport, the 
town clerk compared the names on the ballots with a list of 
those voting which he had previously made. A person who 
had recently been admitted as a freeman in his town, could 
vote at the town meeting, and in case the assembly admitted 
him to the freedom of the colony, his proxy would be re- 
c?eived and counted good. If he was rejected his proxy 
would be thrown out.^ 

Though it would seem that the character of the proxy as 
a power of attorney enabling one freeman to exercise the 
franchise of another, would require that such instruments 
should be signed, yet Rhode Island was the only colony 
where this was done. It seems to the writer that the Rhode 
Island rule is further evidence that the proxy system was 
introduced for another purpose than that of providing a more 

^6 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 256; Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I 07 

secret ballot. In fact, votes cast by the electors in person 
at the general court were secret, because unsigned.^ It 
seems to have been customary, in Rhode Island at any rate, 
to preserve the proxies sent in from the towns, for in 1767 a 
law was passed ordering that those on hand should be 
burned.^ 

There is no very satisfactory evidence in possession of the 
writer as to a proxy system in Hartford before the charter 
of 14 Charles II. The language employed in the Constitu- 
tion of 1638 seems to assume that personal attendance was 
necessary.^ About the year 1660 we find mention of "ye 
remote planta^ : (y* vse to send Proxies at ye Election by 
their Deputies," and this seems to show that proxies were 
used to a limited extent.* 

In New Haven the evidence that a proxy system existed 
is more conclusive. The Fundamental Orders of 1643 pro- 
vided for a course of procedure similar to that already de- 
scribed, and required that " votes be sealed up in the pi^s- 
ence of the free burgesses themselves that their severall lib- 
ertyes may be preserved and their votes directed according 
to their owne perticular light. "^ Even before this date there 
is evidence of a proxy system.^ The earliest edition of the 
laws printed in London in 1656, provided in addition to the 
order just quoted, that if a freeman " proposing to be present 
at the election, when the other votes were sealed up, should 
after be hindered, and then want opportunity to seal up his 
vote in the presence of the major part of the freemen; in 
such case he may seal it up in the presence of two such 
freemen as know he sent no vote before, and (upon their 

' 4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 208; see p. 148, post. 
'^ 7 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 18. 

^ " Every p'son present and qualified shall bring in to the persons deputed to 
receive the — ." i Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. *• Ibid., 349. 

^I New Haven Colonial Records, 114. ^ Ibid., in. 



138 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



testimony or certincate) it shall be accepted, that so the 
liberty of the freemen shall be preserved and they may have 
means to attend their duty and their votes may be directed 
according to their own particular light. "^ 

Under the Connecticut charter proxies do not appear to 
have been authorized until 1670, when the court became 
" sencible of the great charge, diiificulty and expence of time 
the freemen of this colony are at by reason of their great 
numbers and remoatness from Hartford, the place of elec- 
tion, and considering the many inconveniences that other- 
wayes may arise upon the yearly day of election, and that 
the worke of that day may be the more orderly, easily and 
speedily issued." ' 

As in Plymouth and Rhode Island, the proxies were col- 
lected in the town meetings, at which the deputies were 
chosen. These took place at the meeting houses on the last 
Tuesday in April (the election was on the second Thursday 
in May), commencing at nine o'clock. The method of pro- 
cedure was similar to that employed at the general court of 
election, and the secrecy of the ballot was thereby preserved. 
The meetings were first called to order, and after the freeman's 
oath and the penalty for disorderly voting had been read, the 
names of the persons nominated at the general court of the 
preceding October were announced. Each voter then 
brought to the constable the name of his choice for governor 
"fairly written upon a piece of paper." These ballots were 
sealed up in a package which was endorsed with the name of 
the town and the words : " These are the votes for the Gov- 
ernour." The votes for Deputy Governor, Secretary and 
Treasurer were then collected in like manner and sealed up 
in packages appropriately labeled. The assistants were 
voted for in the peculiar manner which was employed at the 

' 2 New Haven Colonial Records, 567. 
^2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 131. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



139 



general court, and which will be considered in that connec- 
tion. The proxies were sent to Hartford, accompanied by 
a list of the names of those who had cast them,' 

Though there were occasional changes in the days ap- 
pointed for the town meetings," no alteration appears to have 
been m.ade in the.method of voting by proxy until after the 
Revolution. The proxies were handed in on the Monday fol- 
lowing the first Tuesday in April. It would seem that free- 
men were no longer allowed to attend the court of election in 
person," for no provision is made in the statutory revision of 
1750 for their presence. The ballots cast in the towns were 
still regarded as proxies and sent to Hartford as before. In 
fact, this extremely ridiculous custom of having the votes 
cast at the town meetings in April kept secret and not 
counted till the middle of May, was continued until 18 19, 
when it was at last abolished.* 

Outside of New England the writer has found but a single 
instance of anything resembling the proxy system. The 
authority for this statement is found in a letter of instructions 
from the lords proprietors to the governor of South Caro- 
lina in September, 1683. The passage bearing on the point 
in question is as follows : 

"Wee are informed that there are many undue practices in the 
choyce of members of Pari'"', and that men are admitted to bring 
papers for others and put in their votes for them, wh is utterly ille- 
gal & contrary to the custome of Parliaments & will in time, if suf- 
fered, be very mischeevious : you are therefore to take care that 
such practices be not suffered for the future, but every man must 
deliver his own vote & noe man suffered to bring the votes of another, 

^2 Connecticut Colonial Records, 133; 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, II; 
Session Laws, 1715, 30. 

^ 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 277, 279. 

■' Election to be by " Proxy of the Freemen," Session Laws, 1750, 45. 

* Public Acts, i?)ig, chs.^. 2, :^12. 



I40 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



& if the sheriffs of the counties shall presume to disobey herein, you 
are to commissionate eight other sheriffs in their Roomes."^ 

Whether or not the threat contained in the last sentence 
of this letter was sufficient to stop the practice complained 
of, the writer cannot say. Certain it is that a law passed 
some years later expressly forbade any absentee from voting 
by "proxy, letter or otherwise.'"^ As has been elsewhere 
noted,' election laws were passed in 1692 and 1696, of which 
the writer has not been able to obtain a copy. Beyond this 
no evidence has been found of anything like voting by proxy, 
and the common law doctrine of the illegality of the exercise 
of a public franchise by proxy should, it would seem, be an 
effectual bar to anything of the sort in the provinces more 
directly under royal control.* 

§ 7. Method of Taking the Vote. A. New England, i) Elec- 
tion of General Officers. As has already been stated, the 
general officers of the New England governments were 
chosen at the annual meeting of all the freemen of the colony 
assembled in general court of election.^ The introduction 
of the proxy system did not put an end to this custom, for 
all freemen were present in theory, even though they voted 
by proxy. As long as freemen were permitted to attend the 
general court of election, the character of the proceedings 
was not changed. It may be assumed that the governor, 
by virtue of his office, presided over the general court of 
of election. The court was usually held, not in the open air, 
but in a building of some sort, sometimes the meeting house, 
sometimes the residence of a private person.* 

^ Rivers, South Carolhia, Appendix, 406. See also p. 160 post. 

^Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 149. "See footnotes, pp. 53, 68, 78, ante. 

*2I Car. I, Act xx, I Hening, 333 (Virginia), seems to insist particularly on 
personal attendance at the election. = See pp. 2 et seq ; loi et seq, ante. 

®See I Winthrop's New England, 81 ; 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 30, 
271; also p. 145, /oj'^'. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. i^j 

In Massachusetts, the governor, as well as the other officers, 
were at first chosen by " erec'cion of hands,"' which was the 
method employed in England, if no poll was demanded. 
But we have the authority of Governor ^Vinthrop for the 
statement that in 1634 and thereafter, "the governor and 
deputy were elected by papers wherein their names were 
written."- Some years afterwards it was enacted that such 
" papers" must be " open, or once folded, not twisted or 
rolled up, that they may be the sooner perused."' Under 
the proxy system ballots were cast in the towns and sent in 
a package to the general court of election, where they were 
counted together with those cast by the freemen voting at 
the court in person.* A list of the names of those voting 
accompanied each package, but whether or not the names of 
all the freemen of the colony were read before the court and 
each voter present deposited his ballot in his turn, cannot be 
clearly made out from the laws." The ballots cast at the 
court of election do not appear to have been signed, and 
therefore possessed all the elements of secrecy. Under the 
law of 1679-80, the proxies were counted and sorted into 
separate packages on the Monday preceding the Wednes- 
day of election, so that it was. a comparatively simple mat- 
ter to add the ballots cast by the freemen attending on the 
latter day to the total number of proxies cast for each can- 
didate, as previously ascertained." But this law was in force 
less than a year. By the order of October, 1680, the colony 

' I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 37J, 59, 95, 104. 

* I Winthrop's Nezv England, 65, 81. It is said that the written ballot was firs 
used in America at the election of the officers of the Salem church in 1629. See 
2 Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, 431, et seq., where a 
history of the ballot is given. 

''2 Massachtisetts Colonial Records, 220; Laws, ed. l66o, 27; 1814, 105. 
^ (^ Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262, 292. 

* I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 188. * 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262. 



142 



HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 



returned to the old practice, it being declared that the gov- 
ernor and deputy governor should be elected and proclaimed' 
before the election of the assistants.' All ballots which were 
brought in for either nomination or election must be depos- 
ited at the court of election either by the person voting or by 
the deputy or constable of the town where the voters whose 
proxies were brought resided. 

No further details are given in regard to the manner of 
voting for the governor and other general officers. The 
election of assistants was, however, considered to be of such 
"great concernment"'' that not only was a method of nomi- 
nation by ballot required, but the election proper was con- 
ducted in a peculiar manner. In 1630 assistants were first 
chosen by the freemen. The following year the freemen 
were permitted to propose those whom they desired chosen, 
and "if it be doubtfull wheth^' it be the great'' pte of the 
comons or not, it shalbe putt to the poll."'^ When the ballot 
was first used in 1634, a special form of procedure was em- 
ployed in the election of assistants. Governor Winthrop in- 
forms us that they "were chosen by papers without names, 
viz., the Governor propounded one to the people when they 
all went out and came in at one door, and every man deliv- 
ered a paper into a hat — such as gave their vote for the 
party named gave in a paper with some figure or scroll 
in it, others gave in a blank."* This was substantially the 
form adopted for the election of assistants in Connecticut.*^ 
When the method of nominations was introduced, it was ex- 
pressly stipulated that those of the eighteen nominees who 
had been magistrates during the previous year, should be 

^ 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 292. 
''^ 2, Massachusetts Colonial Records, 177. 
^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 79, 87. 
* I Winthrop's A^ew England, Savage ed.,11790, 81. = See page \^o, post. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLOXIES. 



143 



first proposed for election.^ This was an important matter 
Inasmuch as the voters balloted not upon all the eighteen 
names at once, but upon each of the nominees as he was 
separately put up. 

In 1643, assistants were no longer voted for by means of 
"papers," but by "Indian beanes, the white beanes to 
manifest election, the black for blanks."^ The language of 
the statute books required that Indian corn should be used 
to designate election, and beans the contrary, and imposed 
a penalty of ten pounds upon freemen who put in more than 
one grain for any ofBcer.^ The result of the course of pro- 
cedure followed in Massachusetts, was that each nominee 
was either accepted or rejected by each voter, and following 
the analogy of the Connecticut rule, it may be presumed 
that those receiving more affirmative than negative votes 
were elected/ It is not perfectly clear what result the 
introduction of the proxy had on the corn and bean system. 
The act of 1647, required the town officers to seal up in dis- 
tinct packages the votes of such freemen as remained at 
home, and send them to the court of elections, " all the 
assistants to be chosen by Indian corn as aforesaid."^ The 
most reasonable interpretation of this, and one that is borne 
out by the language of the records,*^ seems to be that the 
freemen were to vote in their town meetings by corn and 
• beans, and that the identical grains of corn and beans so 
used, were to be sealed up and taken to Boston and de- 
posited in the hat when the name of the person voted for 
was proposed. This explanation is in accord with the 

1 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 177; 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 291 ; 
Laws, ed., 1660. 

^ 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 42, 220. 

^Z«wj, ed. 1660, 27; ed. 1672, 47; ed. 1814, 105. 

* Connecticut Session Laws, 30. 

° Laws, ed., 1814, 106. ^ 2 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 220. 



144 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



theory of the proxy system which was instituted for the ex- 
press purpose of enabHng the identical ballots cast in the 
towns to be deposited at the general court of election in 
Boston. That the bean ballot was not .soon abolished, is 
shown by the statute books of 1660' and of 1672.'^ 

In 1679-80, however, a law was passed which seems to 
have suspended this method of voting for one year at any 
rate. According to this order the names of the twenty 
assistants were to be placed on one sheet of paper " cut 
almost asunder betwixt each name," and the rule seems to 
have applied to the votes cast at the general court of elec- 
tion, as well as to the proxies handed in at the towns. The 
system of separately proposing each nominee was also abol- 
ished, for it was specified that the eighteen receiving the 
largest number of votes should be assistants for the ensuing 
year.'' As under this law all the proxy ballots had been 
counted and sorted on the Monday preceeding the Wednesday 
of election, the ballots cast on the latter day by the freemen 
attending in person were simply added to the number of 
proxies given for each candidate as previously ascertained. 

But under the authority of the statute passed in October, 
1680, the former method of procedure was revived. After 
the other general officers had been voted for in the town 
meetings by means of the Indian corn ballot, twenty assist- 
ants were chosen out of the twenty-six persons in nomina- 
tion, and the ballots cast for these were carried to Boston. 
There the freemen who were present in person at the court 
of election voted, and the eighteen nominees receiving the 
largest number of votes were declared elected. Why twenty 
names were voted for in the towns and only eighteen at the 
general court does not appear. Although the assistants 
were still chosen by corn, there is nothing in the statute 

^ Page 27. * Page 47. 

^ 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. j^r 

which would tend to support the presumption that the sys- 
tem of separate nomination was revived.' 

The general court of election for Massachusetts was not 
always held at Boston, In 1637 it took place at Newton 
(now Cambridge), in the open air.' In 1644 the deputies 
voted that the next election should be held at Salem, but on 
account of the dissent of the magistrates this was not done,'' 
Because of Indian troubles in the spring of 1635^6, some of 
the more distant towns were permitted to keep a number of 
their freemen at home for purposes of defence. This, as we 
have seen,* was the occasion when the proxy system was 
first introduced. In order to provide for the safety of those 
who attended the election court in person that year, each of 
the towns nearest to Boston was ordered to send ten of their 
freemen "completely armed with musketts, swords, shotts, 
&c,"' 

^5 Massachusetts Colonial Recoi'ds, 2()2; Supplement to Laws and Orders of i6';f2, 
dated October 13th, 1680; Laws, ed, 1814 109. 

'■^ Coffin, History of Newbury Z2.; i Massachusetts Colonial Records, 194. 

' 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 5. * See p. 129, ante. 

^ I Massacktisetts Colonial Records, 166. Since the foregoing pages were written, 
my attention has been called to a contemporaneous description of the Massa- 
chusetts court of election about the year 1640. It is found in Lechford's Plaine 
Dealing, Newes from New-England (pp. 24, 25, London, 1642), and is worthy of 
insertion in this connection : 

" The manner of elections is this : At first the Chiefe Governour and Magis- 
trates were chosen in London by erection of hands of all the Freemen of this 
Society. Since the transmitting of the Patent into New-England, the election is 
not by voices, nor by erection of hands, but by papers, thus : The generall court 
Electory, sitting where are present in the church or meeting house at Boston, the 
old Governour, Deputy and all the Magistrates and two Deputies or Burgesses for 
every town or at least one; all the Freemen are bidden to come in an one doore 
and bring their votes in paper for the new Governour and deliver them downe 
upon the table before the Court and so to passe forth at another doore. Those 
that are absent send their votes by proxies. All being delivered in the votes are 
counted, and according to the major part the old Governour pronounceth that 
such a one is chosen Governour for the yeare ensuing. Then the Freemen in 
like manner bring in their votes for the Deputy Governour who being chosen, the 



146 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



In Plymouth the general court of election was held " in 
his Majesties name of England."^ The election appears to 
have been by ballot. The votes of all the freemen present 
were first read, and then the deputies presented the proxies 
of their towns. The roll of the freemen seems to have been 
called, for the deputies were bidden to take a list of those 
whose votes they carried in order that they might answer 
for them when they were called.- At the county courts of 
election where associates were chosen, a similar course of 
procedure was followed.^ 

At the meeting which organized the Rhode Island colon- 
ial government in 1647, i^ was agreed that the election of 
ofificers should be "by papers,"* although I am inclined to 
believe that the ballot was used before that date.'^ The pro- 
ceedings at the general court of election were as follows: 
On the day before, a meeting of the general assembly was 
held, and at this the deputies presented their credentials and 

Governour propoundeth the Assistants one after the other. New Assistants are, 
of late, put in nomination by an order of general Court, beforehand to be con- 
sidered of. If a Freeman gives in a blanck that rejects the man named; if the 
Freeman makes any m.ark with a pen upon the paper which he brings, that elects 
the man named; then the blancks and marked papers are numbered, and accord- 
ing to the major part of either, the man in nomination stands elected or rejected. 
And so for all the Assistants. And after every new election, which is by their 
Patent to be upon the last Wednesday of Easter Terme, the new Governour and 
Officers are all newly sworn. The Governour and Assistants choose the Secre- 
tary. And all the Court, consisting of Governour, Deputy, Associates and Depu- 
ties of towns, give their votes as well as the rest; And the Ministers and Elders 
and all Church-officers have their votes also in all these elections of chief magis- 
trates. Constables and all other inferiour Officers are sworn in the generall quar- 
ter or other courts or before any Assistant." Also, 3 Massachusetts Historical 
Collections, iii, 82; I Memorial History of Boston, 504. 

^ Laws, 1636, 1 1 Plymotdh Colony Records, 10, Brigham, 40. 

"^ Laws, 1658; Book of General Laws, chap. 5, § 4; Brigham, log, 258. 

^ Laws, 1691, Brigham, 237. * i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 148. 

^ At Portsmouth, in 1638, votes are spoken of as " unsealed," ibid., 64; Newport, 
in 1639-40, ibid., 98; i AxnolA, Histo7y of Rhode Island, it,i. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. jAy 

took their "engagements." A moderator and a clerk were 
chosen, and candidates for the freedom of the colony were 
proposed and admitted by vote. This done, the assembly 
adjourned till the following day, which was that prescribed 
by law for the "general assembly and election."^ The Earl 
of Bellmont 'complained that the preliminary assembly was 
illegal,^ and it is difhcult to see how it complied with the 
letter of the charter, which required the newly elected as- 
sembly to convene on the first Wednesday, and not on the 
first Tuesday in -May.^ 

. On Wednesday, the deputies and magistrates assembled 
and the charter was read. Then the election proper com- 
menced. No regular course of procedure was follpwed, but 
special rules were adopted for each session. At one time 
the election took place after dinner, and at another it began 
at eight in the morning.* In one case the assembly rentoved 
to the lower room for the convenience of the electors." Dur- 
ing the successive years from 1672 to 1678, for example, the 
ballots were received in various waj/s. In 1672 four men 
were chosen from each town " to view and observe the 
votes." The next year all votes brought in were passed 
through the hands of a deputy and a magistrate, while the 
proxies were divided into four parts, and "in opening each 
part" a magistrate and a deputy unfolded the ballots and 
"putt in the votes as called for into the hat." In 1674 cer- 
tain members were appointed to see that there was " an 
orderly and due course, and that no deceit or fraud be prac- 
tised." The following year ballots were received by a 
deputy and an assistant, and if doubts were expressed con- 
cerning any, the officers might open them and "soe deliver 

' 2 RJiode Island Colonial Reco7-ds, 516, 529, 541, 565 etc. 
" 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 385. 
^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 8. * Ibid., 38, 374. 

^ 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 30. 



J . g HISTOR V OF RLE CTIONS 

but one from each person into the hat." The proxies were 
opened by four deputies. In 1678, a sort of poll was taken, 
and two persons were chosen to write down the names of 
the voters.^ When the charter government was restored 
after the fall of Andros, the recorder wrote down the names 
of those voting for governor, while two tellers took the 
ballots from the hands of the electors and put them in a hat. 
Four other tellers then unfolded the ballots and put them in 
a second hat.' The moderator who presided at the election 
was frequently the governor. When the votes had been 
added up the persons chosen were proclaimed and sworn 
into oihce. If, as not infrequently happened, a person 
refused to serve, the assembly filled his place before pro- 
ceeding to its regular business of legislation. 

Previous to 171 5 ballots cast at the general election were 
unsigned. In that year a law was passed requiring all 
electors to sign their ballots as they had previously signed 
their proxies. This measure is said to have been adopted 
because " great abuse and clandestine proceedings and irreg- 
ular practice, as they are creditably informed, hath been 
acted by sundry loose and fractious freemen of said colony 
by putting or delivering into the hat sometimes two, three 
or more votes for one officer." But in a very short time the 
practice of signing ballots was found to cause "great dissatis- 
faction and uneasiness to good people, who deem it a very 
great hardship by exposure to the creating of animosity and 
heartburning of their particular friends." Accordingly the 
obnoxious law was repealed, and a series of severe penalties 
was prescribed, with a view of putting an end to fraudulent 
practices.^ With the exception of this short period, the bal- 
lot in Rhode Island retained its secret character, though the 

^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 450, 483, 517,565; 3 idem, 4. 

''■ 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 271. 

^4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 195, 207. 



LV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I^g 

law requiring proxies to be signed made freemen voting in 
that manner do so at the price of secrecy. When the statute 
abolishing the practice of personal voting at the general 
court was enacted in 1760/ the effect of the custom requir- 
ing proxies to be signed was to abolish the secret ballot 
altogether, so far as Rhode Island elections were concerned. 
The writer has not been able to ascertain precisely what 
was the course followed by the freemen of the New Haven 
colony in casting their votes. The existence of the proxy 
system seems to be circumstantial evidence tending to estab- 
lish the belief that the ballot was used. In the London edi- 
tion of the laws of this plantation (1656) the following pro- 
vision is, however, to be found : 

" That each Freeman, whether present or absent at the Election, 
may the better improve his Liberty, It is Ordered that he may give 
or send his Vote as he finds cause, either in the affirmative, by put- 
ting in an Indian Corn, or in the Negative, by putting in a Beane, or 
in such other manner as the Generall Court shall iudge convenient." ^ 

The passage just quoted refers to elections for the " Mag- 
istracy," which term the present writer is' inclined to believe 
was meant to include the governor, as well as the magistrates 
proper. Now, as already stated,^ the records of the New 
Haven jurisdiction previous to 1653 are lost, and the above 
statute is not found in the existing records so far as pub- 
lished. It is interesting to note in this connection that the 
London edition of the laws is supposed to have been com- 
piled in 1648, although revised by Governor Eaton in 1655 
after he had examined an edition of the Massachusetts laws." 
This fact, as well as the silence of the existing New Haven 
records, would seem to indicate that he introduced the pass- 

^ 6 Rhode Islajtd Colonial Records, 256. 

^ 2 N'ezv Haven Colonial Records, 567, 568. 

^ See p. 121, a}Ue. * 2 New Haven Colonial Records, iv, 154, 186. 



IKO 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



age under discussion, after reading the Massachusetts law of 
1643 ; and fearing lest his action might not be approved, he 
inserted the clause giving the general court power to pre- 
scribe the method to be followed in elections. This suppo- 
sition, as well as the language employed in the New Haven 
statute, confirms the belief already expressed,' that in Massa- 
chusetts, as well as in New Haven, the identical corn and 
beans cast in the town "proxings" were sent to the general 
court of election. 

The Hartford Constitution of 1638 expressly provided 
that the written ballot should be used in the election of of^- 
cers. Each elector brought to the teller a single piece of 
paper with the name of his choice for governor written on it, 
and the candidate receiving the greatest number of such 
votes was declared elected.^ With the exception of the as- 
sistants, the other general officers were elected by ballot, 
and no change appears to have been made in the practice. 

For the election of magistrates or assistants a peculiar 
method was followed both in the general court and in the 
town " proxings." As has been above explained, all candi- 
dates for the office were nominated in advance.'^ When the 
governor and deputy governor could be chosen only from 
those in nomination, each freeman could vote for any name 
on the list. As soon as these two officers had been chosen, 
the secretar}'' read the names of those in nomination, and 
then " severally nominated them distinctly." As each name 
was put up, the freemen handed to the teller pieces of paper. 
Those papers upon which something had been written (not 
necessarily the name "of the candidate) were votes in favor of 
the nominee ; the blanks were votes against him. All per- 
sons having more written papers than blanks were elected, 
but in case less than six were chosen, then a sufhcient num- 

^ See p. 143, atite. ^ l Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. ^ See p. 121, atite. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I e i 

ber of those having the most written papers were taken to 
fill up the quota of six.^ This was the method laid down by 
the constitution of 1638 and it was doubtless modelled after 
the Massachusetts law of 1635." 

Under the charter of 14 Charles II, the same plan Avas fol- 
lowed with some elaborations. The general court seems to 
have arranged the list of persons in nomination, and this 
came to be of importance, for it was required that the names 
should be proposed in the order in which they were placed 
on the list, and as soon as the number of assistants allowed 
by the charter had been chosen the election was to cease.'^ 
In the town " proxings," however, the names of all the nom- 
inees were proposed in turn, so that a freeman could always 
vote for any one he pleased, so long as his name was on the 
list/ 

The rule prevailing in the town " proxings" seems to have 
been extended to the general court in 1692, when it was 
ordered that the proceedings should be as formerly, " onely 
all those that stand for nomination shall pass through the 
election;"'' and that those having the most votes should be 
elected.'' After 1750, when freemen could no longer attend 
the general court, it was provided that no elector could vote 
for more than twelve assistants.' Before this he could vote 
on the whole list, and if he were opposed to any particular 
candidate he could signify his dislike by putting a blank bal- 
lot into the hat. Under the new system, however, he could 
still vote against the nominee, but at the price of forfeiting 
a vote in favor of some one else, for all his ballots both afhrm- 
ative and negative must not exceed twelve in number. 
The effect of this method of choosing assistants appears to 

^ I Corineciicut Colonial Records, 21. ^ See p. 142, ante. 

'^ 2. Connecticut Colojiial Records, 133. 

* 4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1 1 ; "a white piece of paper " to be a blank vote. 
^ Ibid., 81. ^ Session Laws, ed. 1715, 30. ' Ibid., ed. 1750, 45. 



I c 2 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

have been to make few changes among the incumbents of 
these offices. The names of those already in ofifice were 
generahy placed at the head of the list of the nominees, and 
for that reason they were nearly always elected. A contem- 
porary writer^ says that many electors usually retired be- 
fore the close of the voting, but that the expectation of 
reelection was not strong enough to remove all fear of popu- 
lar restraint from the court of assistants. Accordingly, the 
power of the legislature to arrange the order of the names of 
the eight nominees not in office, had a considerable influence 
which could be exerted in the direction of maintaining the 
court of assistants on a footing representing the conserva- 
tism of twenty years back, as was indeed actually the case. 

The two houses of the legislature had separated in 1698, 
and the lower house always contended that when a vacancy 
occurred in the office of Governor, the two houses should sit 
in convention in order to exercise their power as conferred 
by charter, of choosing a person to serve during the unexpired 
term. But the houses appear to have sat separately on such 
occasions, and while in 1707, their votes were combined. "■' 
in 1724 the candidate having a majority of the votes of each 
house was declared elected.^ In order to be elected during 
the later years of the colonial government, a candidate was 
required to receive a majority of all the votes cast. If this 
did not happen, the assembly elected the officer.* 

The commentator who has already been quoted, gives an 
account of the proceedings at Hartford on election day, 
during the latter part of the eighteenth century, when the 
freemen took no part in the proceedings except to look on 
and listen. The representatives met in their chamber at 

^ I Swift, Syste^n of the Laws of Connecticut, 84. 

'■* 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 38. 

'^ Ibid., 484. See also 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 416. ' 

* 8 Connecticut Colonial Records, 453. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



153 



eight o'clock and elected their speaker and clerk. Creden- 
tials were then presented, and the members sworn. A mes- 
sage was sent to the outgoing governor and council, who had 
meanwhile met in the council chamber. Both houses then 
marched in procession to the meeting-house, where the elec- 
tion sermon was preached. This done, the houses retired to 
their apartments and appointed committees to count the 
votes that had been cast in the towns more than a month 
before. When the canvass was completed, the persons 
elected were publicly proclaimed and sworn into office.' 

Coming as it generally did in the spring time after the 
rigors of winter had departed, we may believe that the day 
of the general court of election was the New England 
holiday. In two of the colonies a typical feature of the 
celebration was the preaching of an election sermon. Gov- 
ernor Winthrop tells us in his Journal that the position of 
preacher was regarded as one of very great honor, and that 
the freemen strictly insisted on the privilege of selecting the 
clergyman who was to deliver the discourse, and claimed it 
as a part of their liberty. The magistrates do not seem to 
have dared to openly contest the question with the freemen 
or with their deputies.'"' 

In the colonial records of Connecticut, we find continual 
references to the subject of election sermons, and they were 
preached down to the very close of the colonial period.' 
This custom was found to be so efifectual for the promotion 
of honesty in elections, that in 1708 the general court re- 
solved to send a letter to all ministers of the gospel resident 
in the colony, asking them to preach on election day before 

^ I Swift, System of the Laws of Con7iecticut, 70. 
'^ I Winthrop's N'ew England, 31, 218. 

•^ 1775, 15 Connecticut Colonial Records, 271. An extract from one of them is 
given in 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 179. 



I e 4 HIS TOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

the freemen of each plantation, a sermon " proper for direc- 
tion in the choice of civil rulers."^ 

Feasting also seems to have formed a part of the pro- 
gramme, and, strange as it may seem, in a colony so strictly 
governed " according to the word of God," as was New 
Haven, we find the following entry in the records under date 
of 1653 : " Ordered that a dinner should be provided at y^ 
ordinary for the court and whom they shall invite, vpon the 
election day, at the publique charge of the jurisdiction, but 
after euery towne is to pvide for theire owne magistrates and 
deputies."'^ 

2) Election of Deputies. The course of procedure to be 
followed at the town courts where deputies were chosen does 
not seem to have been regarded as a matter of great import- 
ance, because very little general legislation bearing on the, 
subject is to be found. For instance, it is not entirely 
clear whether, in case a town was entitled to more than one 
representative, each elector placed the names of all the per- 
sons he voted for on a single ticket, or on several. We 
shall see that the written ballot was generally used in New 
England even under the royal governments. Thus in Mas- 
sachusetts, after 1635, deputies were elected "by papers as 
the Gou'n"" is chosen," " while the laws of Plymouth and New 
Hampshire contain no provisions on this subject. The writ- 
ten ballot was so firmly established in Massachusetts that it 
continued to be used under the charter of 1691, by virtue of 
a statute which required electors to hand in their votes un- 
folded.* 

In- Rhode Island it was enacted that the free inhabitants 
of the towns should elect committees of six to represent 

^ 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 6i. '^2 New Haven Colonial Records, 52. 
^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 157; Laws, ed. 1660, 25; ed. 1814, 97. 
* Laws 1693-4, chap 14, § 7, I Ames and Goodell, 147. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. iqe 

them at the general court, and that if the number were in- 
complete, the men of the town, if freemen of the colony, 
should fill vacancies by an election to be held at the town 
where the court sat.' But this custom seems to have fallen 
into disuse, for we find that the Earl of Bellmont complained 
that deputies were chosen by the town council rather than 
by the inhabitants.' 

By the Hartford Constitution of 1638, it was provided 
that the election of deputies should be by ballot, and voters 
were required to "bring in written on severall papers" the 
names of those they desired chosen. The three or four 
having the greatest number of papers were to be deputies to 
the next general court.^ In this case it seem.s plain that 
each freeman cast as many ballots as there were deputies to 
be chosen. After the grant of the charter no particular 
mode of election seems to have been prescribed.* Swift in 
1790, wrote that deputies were elected by ballot,'^ while a 
recent writer states that it became customary after the con- 
solidation witlr New Haven, to elect them by acclamation.*' 

B. The Royal Provinces. For want of a better name we 
have grouped under the title of the royal provinces all those 
colonies which followed in substance the course of procedure 
customary in choosing the members of the House of Com- 
mons in England. The title is somewhat misleading, for 
Maryland will be included in this group, although for the 
greater part of her history she was under proprietary rule ; 

^ I Rhode Islajid Colonial Records, 236. 
"^ 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 385, et seq. 
^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 
* See Session Laws, 30; "first they shall choose," etc. 
^ I System of the Laws of Connecticut, 66. 

« Judge Baldwin, Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut; 4 Ainericatt His- 
torical Association, pt. iv, 90, Series of 1890. 



iS6 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



while the Carohnas and Massachusetts Bay are excluded 
notwithstanding the fact that during the eighteenth century 
they were governed directly by the British crown. In New 
York, New Jersey (after 1701), Maryland, Virginia and 
Georgia, the English method was introduced, generally, it is 
believed, on account of the influence of the home government. 

In the royal provinces the ballot was unknown ; in fact, it 
was not used in England until after 1872. Under this sys- 
tem secrecy does not appear to have been sought, and it 
certainly was not attained. For this reason the written 
ballot of New England was a far superior method and 
one better calculated to preserve the purity of elections. 
Although the records of the Puritan colonies show that fraud 
was sometimes practiced, it is difficult to understand, from 
a modern point of view, how a system more open to abuse 
than the English could be devised. In order to fully under- 
stand the manner in which elections were carried on in the 
group of colonies we are about to consider, it will perhaps 
be advisable to review briefly the development in England 
from the first parliamentry election in the reign of Edward 
the First, down to the declaration of American Independence 
in 1776. 

The procedure at the parliamentary elections of the thir- 
teenth and fourteenth centuries is involved in obscurity. " It 
would be a waste of ingenuity" says Bishop Stubbs, "to 
speculate on the dififerent courses that a sheriff unguided by 
custom, may have adopted."^ The statute of 7 Henry IV '^ 
provided that the election should take place at the next 
county court, to be holden after the delivery of the writ. 
After proclamation, all persons, as well as " suitors duly 
summoned for the same cause as other," proceeded " freely 
and indififerently " to the election. This power of citing 

^.3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 417. 2 chap. 15. 



TN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



157 



voters was open to great abuse, and made it possible for the 
sheriff to do about as he pleased.' 

The will of the electors was expressed by show of hands, 
or by a viva voce vote. The sheriff decided who had been 
elected "by taking a view," and the legality of such a pro- 
ceeding was affirmed in 1554 by the courts of law. In a 
contested case decided that year the plaintiff contended that 
because no poll had been taken, the sheriff could not deter- 
mine the exact number of electors in favor of any particular 
candidate. But the judges decided that this was not neces- 
sary.'^ 

In the twenty-first year of the reign of James I, the House 
of Commons established the right to a poll by ordering a 
new election, and declaring the previous one void, although 
three successive views had been taken.'^ A debate held in 
the House in 1625, shows that the method of taking the poll 
was very crude. At the trial of a disputed election it was 
shown that the sheriff closed the front entrance to the place 
of election and stood at the postern gate in order to count 
the electors as they passed out. While he was thus engaged 
the front gate was forced open. He thereupon stopped tak- 
ing the poll, acting on the theory that only those present at 
the view should be counted. The House of Commons, 
however, decided that a new election must be held.* This 
decision upholds the position that the poll was continued for 
some days, so that all who desired might have an oppor- 
tunity of voting, even though they had been absent from the 
view. 

In the latter part of the seventeenth century the court of 

' 3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 419. 

^ Plowden, Commentaries, 129. 

^ I Resohdions and Orders of the House of Commons, 729, 

* Ibid., 801, 804; Cox, Antient Parliajuentary Elections, 123. 



158 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



hustings for the election of members to the House of Com- 
mons was held in the open air or in a public building. 
After proclaiming silence, the returning officer read aloud 
his writ and announced the penalty imposed by law upon 
illegal voting/ After being proposed in his turn by an 
elector, each candidate addressed the assembled voters from 
a raised platform. Then, if the number of candidates did 
not exceed the number of members to be returned, the elec- 
tion was made by acclamation. If not, a show of hands was 
called for, in order to assist the sheriff in determining "the 
choice by the view." Any one who chose to be present 
could participate in the election and raise his hand or his 
voice. It may, therefore, be imagined that the proceeding 
was far from orderly. 

Any candidate had the right to contest the decision of the 
sheriff by demanding a poll, which was taken by that officer 
or by his deputy, assisted by a suitable number of clerks. 
Only those qualified according to law could be entered in 
the poll list, which contained the name of each freeholder, 
the place of his freehold and the name of the person for 
whom he voted.'' A statute passed in i/ii, required the 
place of. abode to be set down and the word jurat in case 
the freeholder was sworn. In Yorkshire and Cheshire the 
sheriff was compelled to provide seven " convenient tables 
or places" to be "made at the costs and charges of the 
candidates, and to be placed within the shire halP in the fol- 
lowing manner: Two each side, two at the upper and one at 
the lower end." This provision was probably intended for 

^ See Statute 2 Geo. II, chap. 24, § 9; 3 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, § 7. 

^ Statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25, § 3. This statute was enacted in some 
form in Virginia, New York, New Jersey and Georgia. 2 De Franqueville, 
Le Gouvernmeni et le Parliament Britannique, 417. 

^ This applied only to Chester. 



nV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I eg 

the convenience of the voters, and for the same reason it was 
customary to continue a poll for several daj^s;' 

By 1745 the number of electors in each county seems to 
have grown so large that a more elaborate method of taking 
the poll was necessary. Within three days before the com- 
mencement of the poll, the sheriff was required to erect at 
the expense of the candidates as many booths as he thought 
proper. These booths were not to exceed fifteen in number, 
and were conspicuously labeled with the name of the rape, 
wapentake, tathe, ward or hundred for which the use of 
which the booth was designed. At each booth were placed 
a clerk with a poll book, and also an inspector for each can- 
didate. The inspectors were provided with cheque books in 
which to enter the names of the freeholders voting. Each 
clerk was given a list of all the towns, villages, parishes and 
hamlets situated in the division whose name was on his 
booth. Copies of these lists were furnished to the candidates 
or their agents at the price of two shillings apiece, and only 
inhabitants of the places mentioned in the lists could vote 
at any particular booth, unless the estate of the voter lay in 
some district not entered on any of the lists. The compen- 
sation of the clerks was fixed at not less than a guinea a 
day and this was paid by the candidates.- Except perhaps 
in Pennsylvania and Delaware the system of booths does not 
appear to have been introduced into this country, and there 
is no evidence that the representatives of the colonial candi- 
dates were expressly authorized to use cheque books. 

In regard to adjourning or closing the poll, the English 
law was as follows: No adjournment to another town could 
be had without the consent of the candidates, nor was any 
unnecessary delay permitted. Unless the candidates con- 
sented, the returning officer must proceed from day to day, 

^ Statute 10 Anne, chap. 23. 

2 Statutes 18 Geo. II, chap. i8, §§ 7, 8, 9; 19 Geo. II, chap. 28, § 6. 



1 50 ^^IS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

and from time to time, until all the freeholders present were 
polled. Elections were held at the next regular county 
court after the receipt of the writ, unless the court met with- 
in six days thereafter. If so, the sheriff gave ten days 
notice and adjourned to some convenient day, which could 
not be a Monday, a Friday, or a Saturday. But county 
courts of election beginning on a day other than those men- 
tioned, could be adjourned to these days, and from day to 
day until the election was completed.^ 

On the western side of the Atlantic we find that it was 
customary in early times for the sherififs of Virginia to go 
from one plantation to another and collect the votes of the 
inhabitants.^ A law passed by the House of Burgesses in 
1639 ordered the sheriffs "not to compel any man to go off 
the plantation where he lives to choose burgesses." '' That 
it was customary for the electors to exercise their franchise, 
either by signing a paper which the sheriff carried about, or 
else by sending their votes by proxy, is shown by a statute 
of 1646 to the following effect: 

"Whereas divers inconveniences are likely to ensue by disorderly 
and illegal election of Burgesses by subscribing of hands contrary to 
the warrant directed for the sayd election, by which means it also 
happeneth that few nor none doe appeare personally according to 
summons, Be it therefore inacted that noe election shall be made of 
any Burgesse or Burgesses but by a plurality of voices, and that noe 
handwriting shall be admitted." * 

In the future personal attendance of all voters was required 
under penalty. 

Less than ten years after the act just quoted we find that 
the sheriff was required to determine the election by taking 
the view,^ but two statutes passed a little later seem to hint 

1 Statutes 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 25 ; 6 Geo. II, chap. 23. - 1 Hening, xix, xx. 
"'■ 14 Car. I, Act xix; i Hening, 227. * 21 Car. I, Act xx; I Hening, 333. 

^ 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii; i Hening, 411. 



I A' THE AMERICAN COLONIES. jgj 

at something resembling the forme'r custom by using the 
words : " Provided always that they fairly give their votes 
by subscription, and not in a tumultuous way." ' 

Whether or not there may have been a tendency towards a 
written form of ballot, the question was effectively put to rest 
in Virginia by the statute of ii William III, chap. 2, which, 
like the law enacted in New York during the course of the 
same year, was modelled on the English statute of 7 and 8 
William III, chap. 25, from which we have already quoted." 
In case the election of any burgess could not be "determined 
upon the view by the consent of the freeholders then present, 
but that a poll shall be required for determination thereof," 
the sherifT was empowered to take one with the assistance of 
clerks to be appointed for that purpose. The name of each 
freeholder and that of the person for whom he voted were 
entered in writing.'^ It will be noticed that the language of 
this statute* gives any candidate or freeholder power to de- 
mand a poll. 

Later enactments elaborated in several particulars the 
method of taking the poll. Books were to be provided for 
the purpose, and first of all the name of each candidate was 
written on a separate page or in a particular column. Then, 
as each freeholder voted, his name was fairly written in the 
proper pages or columns under the names of .the persons 
for whom he voted. No freeholder who had once voted for 
two persons, could afterward poll for any more. The poll 
could not be concluded until all present had voted, or until 
after proclamation had been made three times from the court 
house door, and no more freeholders appeared.'' 

Toward the close of the colonial period we find that 

' 6 Commonwealth, Act xvi; i Hening, 403; 9 Commonwealth, Act xciii; ibid, 
473. ^ See p. 158, ante. 

•■' 3 Hening, 172. '•Also 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § lO; 7 Hening, 519. 

^4 Anne, chap. 2, § 4; 3 Hening, 236. 



1 52 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

every person having the right to vote for two burgesses must 
name them both when he first presented himself to be polled, 
or else forfeit his privilege of voting for a se,cond candidate. 
As far back as 1705, the English House of Commons had 
declared that a person having the right to vote for two mem- 
bers could not vote for one and then come back again and 
vote a second time if he had named but one candidate at 
first.' In case more freeholders appeared on the first day of 
an election than could be polled before sunset, and if the can- 
didates or their agents so requested, the sheriff could adjourn 
the poll to the following day. Notice of such an adjourn- 
ment must be posted on the court house door. After mak- 
ing the three proclamations required, the returning officer 
must wait at least an hour before closing the poll.- 

The writer has been unable to ascertain how elections 
were managed in Dutch times, but when the first legislative 
assembly was called in the province of New York in 1683, a 
form of indirect election seems to have been used. Thus in 
Long Island the freeholders of each town chose a committee 
of four to meet at the sessions house of each riding and se- 
lect two representatives for the assembly. A similar course 
was followed in Esopus, but everywhere else the counties as 
a whole met and elected assemblymen.^ Besides this single 
instance, there is no case of the town being recognized as an 
election district in New York. Under the first general law, 
the cities, counties and manors in the province elected repre- 
sentatives, and the procedure was much the same as that 
existing at the time in Virginia. The language of the stat- 
ute seems to leave the question whether or not there should 
be a poll somewhat within the discretion of the sheriff.' 

■" 15 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Cominons, 135, 137. 
^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, §§ 9, 10; 7 Hening, 519. 

^ Introdtiction to the yournal of the Ahui York Legislative Council, xi. 
* II Will. Ill, chap. 74; Van Schaack's Laivs, 28. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 1 63 

Copies of the polls for the election of the representatives 
from New York City in 1761, 1768 and 1769 were reprinted 
in 1880 from the original manuscript. The poll of 1769 was 
printed soon after the election, and a copy of it is preserved 
in the library of the New York Historical Society. The 
poll list of the first of these years contains the names of the 
electors arranged under the various letters of the alphabet, 
though not in exact alphabetical order. There are six col- 
umns on every page, and each of these is headed with the 
name of a different candidate. Each elector could name four, 
persons, and a check mark was placed in the column, answer- 
ing for the candidate for whom he voted. It is worthy of 
notice that a man did not always cast as many votes as he 
was entitled to, and we find some instances where but one 
candidate was named. The pages are not very large in size, 
and the total number of votes cast for each candidate is given 
at the end of the book. 

In 1768 there were seven candidates, and two additional 
columns were provided, the one headed Freeholders and 
the other Freemen. The abbreviation do is placed in 
the columns in order to designate in which capacity an 
elector voted. Sometimes we find that the same individual 
possessed both qualifications. An extra column contains 
the initials N R^ or S' opposite the names of one or two 
electors. In this poll book there is no summary of the total 
number of votes cast. 

The poll of 1769 differs in some particulars from those 
already described. The columns headed Freeholders and 
Freeinen are placed before those containing the names of 
the candidates instead of after, and a check mark is used 
instead of the abbreviation do. There were eight candi- 
dates, and their names are given in full on the first page, the 

1 N'on-resident. ^ Sworn. . 



1 64 



HISTOR V OF ELECTIONS 



columns being headed merely by the initial letters of their 
surnames. The electors are arranged according to the days 
on which the poll was taken. Mr. Richard Mercer is stated 
to have been the first voter, while James Jauncey, Esq., is 
declared to have been the last. On the final page there is 
an analysis of the number of votes cast on each day for each 
candidate, while the total number of electors is 1 5 1 5. In a few 
cases the occupations of the voters are stated, and the whole 
list is further explained by the following series of symbols : 

q. Signifies the Person qualified {sworn) with Respect to 
his Freehold. 

§ Voted in his Right in the Seceder s Meeting. 

* Stands for Scrutiny. 

N. R., For Non Resident. 

The general election law of New Jersey was chiefly note- 
worthy for its provision that the sheriff should not declare the 
choice upon the view without the consent of the candidates-. 
The proceedings were begun by the reading of the writ and 
the poll was taken from day to day until the names of all 
the electors had been entered. The residences of the 
electors, as well as their names and those of the candidates 
for whom they voted, were placed on the list.^ 

In Maryland no particular method of conducting an elec- 
tion was prescribed. "The safest and best rule for the pro- 
vinces to follow in electing such delegates and representa- 
tives," was declared to be " the presidents of the Proceedings 
in Parliament in England as neare as the Constitution of this 
Province will admitt." ^ Accordingly, the sheriffs were 
merely directed to hold the elections " in such manner and 
forme as y^ laws of England and this province doe direct 
and provide."^ 

' 12 Geo. I, chap. 40; Nevill's Laws, 142; Allinson's Laws, 66. 

'■* Act 1678, Ma'r-yland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 6o. 

'^ 8 Geo. I, chap. 42; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Laws. 



JN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 1 65 

When we come to Georgia we find no authorization of the 
determination of an election either by show of hands or by ac- 
clamation. The returning ofhcer was simply commanded to 
attend the place of election, and enter the names of every 
person presented or presenting himself as a candidate, in a 
book or roll, leaving a fair column under each for the names 
of the voters. As each elector came up to be polled, the re- 
turning ofhcer repeated distinctly the name of the candidate 
voted for, before recording it in the proper column of his 
book. No elector was allowed to alter his vote after it had 
once been entered, or to vote twice at one and the same elec- 
tion. Upon adjourning the poll at convenient times during 
the days of election, the returning ofhcer first added up the 
votes cast and declared the total to the candidates present. 
Upon reopening the poll he again announced the number of 
votes received by each candidate. The limit of an election 
was fixed at two days unless a scrutiny were demanded. 
Upon waiting two hours after the last vote had been given, 
or at any time if the candidates present consented, the poll 
could be closed.' 

C. The Proprietary Governments. The six colonial govern- 
ments whose method of taking the vote remains to be con- 
sidered were all proprietary in their origin and the pro- 
cedure followed at elections appears to have combined the 
best features of the Puritan ballot and the English poll. 
From this combination a general system was evolved which 
ought to have been less liable to abuse than those prevailing 
in the other colonies. Under the proprietary governments, 
whenever an elector was entitled to vote for more than one 
candidate, it was customary to place on the same ticket the 
names of all offtcers having similar functions. In this and 
other respects the ballot in this group of colonies bore a 

^ Act June 9th, 1761. Published in Appendix B to this work. 



1 56 ' HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

strong resemblance to those in common use in the United 
States just before the introduction of the Australian ballot. 

The earliest mention of the ballot in this group of colonial 
governments appears in 1676 in the Concessions and Agree- 
ments granted by the proprietors of West Jersey. It should 
be remembered in this connection that the word ballot did 
not occur in New England ; the term papers being always 
used instead. The writer is therefore inclined to believe 
that this is the first appearance in America of the ballot 
under its later and specific name. 

The language of the West Jersey constitution with refer- 
ence to the subject was as follows : 

" And the said elections shall be made and distinguished by bal- 
lating Trunks, to avoid noise and confusion and not by holding up 
of the hands or otherwise howsoever."' "And also that all such 
elections as aforesaid be not determined by the common and con- 
fused way of crys and voices, but by putting Balls into Balloting Boxes 
to be provided for that purpose for the Prevention of all Partiality 
and whereby every Man may freely choose according to his own 
Judgement and honest Intention."- 

These two passages are also noteworthy for their distinct 
repudiation of the system then in vogue in England of elec- 
tions by acclamation or by show of hands. The Concessions 
and Agreements went into operation, but the writer has not 
been able to discover anything which throws light upon the 
modus operandi of these balls and boxes. 

In East Jersey the paper constitution of 1683 went no 
further than to provide in general terms that all elections 
should be by ballot.'^ Whatever may have been the manner 
of voting under the Jersey proprietary governments, their 

1 Chap. 3, Learning and Spicer, 385. 

^ Chap. 32, Learning and Spicer, 405. 

^Fundamental Constitutions, chaps. 2, 3,5, etc.; Learning and Spicer, 153; i 
New Jersey Archives, 397. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 1 57 

surrender to the crown in 1701 caused the introduction of 
the English poll.' 

It is believed that the ballot as it appeared in the Jerseys 
and in Pennsylvania under its earlier frannes of government 
was derived from Harrington.'^ In his description of the 
ideal comftionwealth of Oceana, the English philosopher 
made provision for an elaborate and complicated system of 
balls and boxes,' modelled upon what he had seen in Venice. 
A recent writer seems to derive the written ballot in New 
England as well as Pennsylvania from the town of Emden in 
Friesland, where Penn had resided for a short time.* In 
support of both views it may, however, be stated that the 
Dutch system and that of the Oceana were in essence some- 
what similar, and both may, therefore, have had an influence 
on the institutions of the American colonies. But in the 
Jersey and Pennsylvania plans all of the cumbersome details 
that characterized the European systems were omitted, so 
that nothing more than the germ appears to have been trans- 
planted to America. 

When we come to Pennsylvania we find something more 
substantial than the vague language of paper constitutions. 
By his first frame of ■ government, as well as by the act of 
settlement, William Penn provided that all elections should 
be by ballot.^ How this provision was construed is shown 
by a debate which took place in April, 1689, in the Provin- 
vincial Council. The matter under discussion was a disputed 
election. One of the members stated that the election was 
attended by great disorder and that many persons came over 
from Jersey and voted in Chester County. As the " Poll 

^ See p. 164, ante. ^ See Chalmers, Political Annals, 642. 

■^ See Harrington's works, ed. Toland. 1 771, 80, S3, 103 et seq. 
^ 2 Campbell, Puritan in Holland, England a?id America, 431 et seq. 
^ § 20 of Frame, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 33: § 18 of Act of Settle- 
ment or Charter of 1 682-3, ' Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 42. 



J 5 8 ^ilS TOR V OF ELECTIONS 

and Ballot" had not been used, he argued that it could not 
be known whether these persons were really residents or 
not. The return made by the sheriff was exhibited, and it 
stated on its face that the electors were not willing to vote 
by ballot. Some of the councillors seemed to think that a 
balloting box was used in only one county and*that unless 
there was doubt as to who had been elected, the delegates 
should be chosen by " votes," meaning we suppose a viva 
voce election. Another member of the council declared that 
the ballot was used at Upland and in all the lower counties, 
" by black and white beanes put into a hatt, wch is balloting 
in his sence and cannot be denyed by the charter, when it 
is demanded."^ 

This debate is of the utmost importance as throwing 
light upon the course of procedure prevailing in Pennsyl- 
vania during the earlier years of her history. The phrase 
" Poll and Ballot," as here used, aptly characterizes the sys- 
tem of elections in the proprietary governments during the 
eighteenth century. The bean ballot may possibly have 
been borrowed from Massachusetts, although we should 
imagine that her influence among the Quakers of Pennsyl- 
vania would be very slight. The fact that the beans were 
put into hats, added to what has already been stated in re- 
gard to some of the New England colonies," shows that arti- 
cles of head gear were used as balloting boxes in America 
as well as in ancient Greece. The doubt as to the proper 
course of procedure which seems to have prevailed in the 
minds of the councillors, indicates that in the earlier times 
the returning ofiEcer was free to act as he pleased in regard 
to matters of detail. If there is any general principle to be 
gathered from the debate in the Pennsylvania Council, it is 
that the ballot took the place of the poll in the Enghsh sys- 

^ I Fennsylvania Colonial Recoi'ds, 279. '^ See pp. 142, 147, 148 ante. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



169 



tern of elections. Unless, therefore, the ballot was demanded, 
or the returning officer was in doubt, elections were decided 
by show of hands or by acclamation. 

No further action, whether by legislation or otherwise, ap- 
pears to have been taken on the subject of elections until 
1706, when the poll and ballot was introduced by a statute 
which prescribed in detail every step in the process of vot- 
ing. On the day of election the clerks w^ere first sworn 
"Truly and indifferently to take the said Poll, and set down 
the names of each Freeholder and Elector and the Place of 
his Freehold or Estate, and to poll no Elector who is not 
attested, if so required by the Inspectors of such Clerks." 
This oath explains the entries in the poll books, for the 
pages of these books were divided into as many " distinct col- 
umns on fair Paper as there shall be candidates voted for." 

As each elector came to the polls he delivered to the 
sheriff or judge of election a piece of paper on which were 
written the names of the persons for whom he voted.' If the 
elector was illiterate, the judge was required to open the 
paper and read aloud the names of the persons written 
therein, and ask the elector if those were the candidates for 
whom he vote'd. Upon receiving an afTfirmative answer, the 
judge put the paper, as well as all other ballots handed to 
him, into a box which the sherifif was required to provide. 
In case, however, a voter brought no tickets, or an illiterate 
elector did not wish to vote for the persons whose names 
were written on his paper, he could give verbally the names 
of the candidates he "mostly desired should be chosen," and 
the clerks were required to make entry accordingly.^ The 
element of secrecy in Pennsylvania elections depended, there- 
fore, upon the option of the individual voter, who could use 
the simple English poll if he saw fit. This recognition of 

1 Each county, it will be remembered, returned eight members. 

2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 



J 70 HlSrOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

the illiterate voter is not found outside of the proprietary do- 
minions of Penn, and it would seem to have been necessary 
wherever it was not desired to confine the suffrage to persons 
who could read and write. In New England, for example, 
except in the election of assistants which an unlearned man 
could easily understand, it would seem that the written bal- 
lot rendered it extremely difficult for an illiterate freeman to 
vote as he desired. A friend or a neighbor might prepare his 
ballot, but then he could not be sure whether it contained 
the names of those for whom he wished to vote. The Penn- 
sylvania statute met this difificulty and electors could be rea- 
sonably certain that they voted as they desired. Of course 
the honesty of the election ofhcers was an important factor 
in bringing about this result. 

After 1 71 8 each elector handed a second ticket to the 
judges and on this were written the names of six persons for 
assessors of the count}^ taxes.^ Seven years later the additional 
ballots also contained the name of a candidate for the office 
of county commissioner.^ In this province the poll could be 
closed as soon as the electors who appeared had cast their 
votes. It could not, however, be delayed in any way or ad- 
journed from place to place. ^ The official report of a riot 
which took place at the regular election of 1742 in Phila- 
delphia gives us a picture, although an imperfect one, of the 
manner in which the voting was conducted under the law of 
4 Anne. The poll was taken in a public street or square 
and the freeholders were twice attacked by a mob of sailors 
and roughs. In the first instance the electors were engaged 
in chosing inspectors, and in the second the voting proper 
was in progress.' 

' 4 Geo. I, chap. 213, Franklin ed., 1742, 156. 
^11 Geo. I, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 131. 
■^ 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 
* 4 Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 620. 



IX THE AMERICAN COIOA'IES. 



171 



In the latter part of the colonial period another general 
election law was enacted which further elaborated the course 
of procedure. Before nine o'clock on the morning of the 
regular day for choosing representatives, the judges of 
election met and "with all expedition," allotted to each 
township, ward or district a separate door, window or other 
convenient place of the house where the election was to be 
held. At each of the places so designated was written or 
printed " in large Characters or Letters the Names of each 
Township, Ward or District whose Inspectors shall attend to 
receive the Tickets of that Place." An inspector was al- 
lowed to receive only the votes from the district which he 
represented. As an elector came up, his name and residence 
were called out in a voice loud enough to be heard by the 
inspectors and clerks of the other divisions. The inspector 
checked off the name of the voter by writing the word voted, 
or, if qualified, by adding the word szvorn or affirmed on the 
margin of the list of taxables of the township from which he 
came. Meanwhile, two clerks took down in writing the 
names and .residences of the electors and the number of votes 
received by each candidate as they were called out by the 
inspectors. The ballots were placed in a box v/hich the 
inspector bound and sealed with tape and gave to the sheriff 
as soon as the voting was over.'. 

Elections were conducted in Delaware in substantially the 
same way as in Pennsylvania. The statute of 4 Anne in the 
latter government was reenacted wit:h a few changes in the 
former.' So also was that of 6 George III, with the addition 
of a provision requiring the sheriff to purchase at the expense 
of the county a ballot box for each hundred. These boxes 
had the name of the hundred printed on the cover and were 

' 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, §§ 3, 5, 8, 10; 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 13; Hall and Sellers ed., 
1 775' 323- 
' 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, .147. 



I 7 2 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TI ONS 

delivered to the inspectors who could put only the ballots 
received from their own hundred into the proper box/ 

The Pennsylvania method of dividing each county into 
districts and providing a separate polling place for the 
electors of each division was doubtless necessary on account 
of the great size of the cpunties, and it was also due to the 
system of inspectors chosen, as has already been shown,' 
from the various divisions of the county. It is, moreover, 
highly probable that the English statute of i8 George 11, 
chap, 1 8, which provided separate booths for each district,-^ 
had some influence on the Pennsylvania statute of 6 George 
III. 

Although by the act of settlement of 1682-3,* the in- 
habitants of Penn's dominions were given the privilege of 
electing a double number of sheriffs and coroners who were 
to be presented to the governor for confirmation, it was not 
until 1706 that a statute explained how the franchise was to 
be exercised in Pennsylvania. This law provided that after 
the election of the members of the assembly had been com- 
pleted, the coroner or the judge of election should cause a 
double number of sheriffs to be chosen in each county. The 
persons selected were ordered to present themselves before 
the governor within two days after their election, and if he 
refused to commission either of them, the candidate first 
named in the return was to hold the office for one year.^ 
After the sheriffs had been chosen, the sheriff or judges pro- 
ceeded in a similar manner to choose a double number of 
coroners. Some years afterward, however, the procedure 
was greatly, simplified by requiring electors to hand in with 
their ballots for assemblymen and assessors a third ticket 

^ 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, Adams ed., 1797, 500. ^ See pp. 116 et seq., ante. 

^ See p. 159 ante. *§ 16, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 16. 

^4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 773 

containing the names of two persons for sheriff and two for 
coroner/ 

Delaware had anticipated her neighbor by enacting in 
1700 a law similar to that of 4 Anne, except that the gov- 
ernor was allowed six days within which to commission a 
a sheriff.- A later act provided that the under-sheriff must 
never be the person chosen but not commissioned, and that 
a sheriff could not have another term until he had been three 
years out of ofhce/^ 

Locke's Constitution contained no provision in regard to 
the method of voting in the Carolinas and, on account of his 
inability to obtain copies of the earlier election laws, the 
writer has no positive information about the condition of af- 
fairs there in the seventeenth century. The revised statute 
of 1 71 5 in North Carolina merely required that all persons 
offering to vote for members of the assembly should bring to 
the marshall or deputy a list containing the names of the 
persons he voted for. That this law was not framed with 
a view to secrecy is shown by the subsequent clause requir- 
ing the voter to subscribe his own name or cause the same 
to be done.* 

In 1744, however, North Carolina adopted the secret bal- 
lot. The election was commenced at or before ten o'clock 
on the morning of the appointed day by the sheriff making 
three proclamations. Each voter handed to the sheriff in 
the presence of the inspectors " a Scroll of Paper rolled up 
with the Name or Names of the Person or Persons he votes 
for written therein." The sheriff put all scrolls so received 
into " a small Box with a Lid or Cover having a Hole in it 

^ n Geo. I, chap. 269, Franklin ed., 1742, 293. 

2 12 Will. Ill, chap. 2ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 29; Adams ed., 1797, 63. 
^ 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 65, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 133; Adams ed., 1797, 164. 
* 2 North Cai'olina Colonial Records, 213. 



1-74 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

not exceeding Half an Inch in diameter ; which said cover 
shall be sealed and secured on the Box in the Presence of 
the Inspectors." A list of all the persons who voted was 
taken in writing by the sheriff and by each of the inspectors. 
The hole in the box was first sealed when the poll was ad- 
journed from one till " Half an Hour after Two of the 
Clock.'" The law just quoted continued in force for about 
sixteen years. In 1760 a statute was enacted which, after 
declaring' that there was no , election law then in operation, 
substituted for the secret ballot the English method accord- 
ing to which the sheriff took the poll in the presence of the 
inspectors. The provision requiring all the votes to be given 
openly and leaving to the sheriff the duty of recording them,' 
seems from a modern point of view, to indicate a backward 
tendency. Possibly the ballot was too far ahead of the times 
to be practicable in North Carolina. 

In South Carolina the complaint of the lords proprietors 
in reference to the practice of allov/ing one elector to bring 
in the vote of another seems to indicate that some form of 
written ballot existed as far back as 1683.^ The election law 
of 1704 seems to recognize the ballot as well as the viva 
voce method of voting. According to it the returning officer 
was to open the election by reading aloud his precept. All 
voices or votes given before the reading of the writ were void, 
and the electors might afterwards alter their votes, if they 
saw fit, or make a new election. Whenever the poll was 
adjourned the returning ofliicer was required " to seal up in a 
paper bag or box all the votes given in that day in the pres- 
ence of, and with the seals of two or more of each contend- 
ing party." At the commencement of each session procla- 
mation was made, and the sheriff bfoke the seals " in the 

^ 17 Geo. II, chap, i, §§ l, 2, li; Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177, 233, 312. 
^ 33 Geo. II, chap, i, §§ l, 2; Davis ed., 1773, 247. 
* Rivers, South Carolina, Appendix, 406. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. I^t 

presence of the parties with whose scales they were sealed 
up, if they will and do attend to see it done."' 

After the parish became the elect-ion district, the names of 
all the voters were " fairly entered in a book or roll, to pre- 
vent voting twice." The electors brought to the church 
wardens scrolls containing in writing the names of the per- 
sons they voted for. These scrolls were rolled up, and when 
the poll was closed they were placed in " some box, glass or 
paper, sealed up with the seals of any two or more" of the 
electors present. When the poll was re-opened the box was 
unsealed.- After 1719, however, it seems to have been the 
duty of the elector to place " in a box, glass, or sheet of 
paper prepared for that purpose a piece of paper rolled up, 
whereon is written the name of the Representatives he votes 
for.""' It is important to note that in South Carolina the 
secrecy of the ballot seems to have depended upon the 
option of each individual voter, for the statutes of both 17 16 
and 1 7 19 expressly declared that electors should not be 
obliged to subscribe their names to the papers they handed 
in. 

§ 8. Count of the Votes. It is scarcely necessary to state 
that when an election was made by show of hands, no partic- 
ular micthod of counting the vote was needed. Whenever 
a poll was taken the mere addition of the names or m.arks in 
the particular column or page assigned to each candidate 
would suffice. In North Carolina we find that the number 
of votes given for each candidate must be cast up by the sheriff 
in the presence of the inspectors,* while in Georgia'' a simple 
addition and declaration was required.*" 

\ Act 1704, no. 227, §§ 8, ]0, 2 Cooper, 249. 
'^ Act 1716, no. 365, §§'2, 3, 2 Cooper, 683. 
3 Act 1719, no. 394, § 5, 3 Cooper, 50. 
* T,2, Geo. II, chap, i, § i, Davis ed., 1773, 247. 
^ Act June 9th, 1761. " Virginia, " Examination," 3 Hening, 236. 



J 75 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

In New England where the general use of the ballot would 
seem to have required some special method of counting the 
votes, there was very little legislation on the subject. During 
the later years of the first Massachusetts government the 
ballots cast at the general election v/ere counted by tellers, 
and these officers as well as all the other persons present at 
canvass were under oath.^ The Hartford Constitution pro- 
vided that the " papers should be received and told by one 
or more chosen by the court. "^ 

Three of the proprietary governments prescribed a detailed 
course of procedure which was to be followed in counting 
ballots. In Pennsylvania the ballot box was opened as soon 
as the poll had been closed and the papers were taken out 
in the presence of the inspectors. The ballots were then 
delivered one by one to the clerks who entered the names 
" therein expressed, in Columns or otherwise, so that they 
shall cast up how many times each person's name is repeated 
in the same and set it down, and shall then pronounce pub- 
licly to the people, him whose name is oftenest mentioned 
in said Papers to be first elected," and so on until the regular 
number of eight had been chosen.^ When there were 
separate ballot boxes for each division of the county, it was 
provided that the judges should proceed to " read, count and 
cast up" the votes, contained in the boxes which the in- 
spectors had delivered to them "bound with tape and sealed 
up." The clerks and inspectors were liable to a penalty of 
;^io for not delivering their lists and tallies to the sheriff.* 

The method of counting the votes in Delaware under the 
district system was more complicated. The boxes were 

^ 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262, 292. See pp. 132, 141, ante. 
^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 

^4 Anne, chap. 129. Franklin ed., 1742, 67. Similarly, Delaware: 7 Geo. II, 
chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118. 

* 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, § 10, Hall and Sellers ed., 1 775, 323. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. ijy 

Opened in succession, and the tickets contained in each one 
were counted separately. When the ballots had been com- 
pared with one another, and the names of the persons voting 
in each hundred had also been ascertained, all the ballots 
were placed in one large box and thoroughly mixed ; " after 
which no more tickets or votes shall be received on any pre- 
tence whatever." Then the sheriff or coroner took the 
tickets out of the larger box, and after reading them aloud 
handed them one by one to the clerks. The inspectors and 
clerks were required to deliver to the sheriff their tax lists 
and tallies undefaced " with the number of persons voting 
ascertained in words at length in a certificate thereof on the ' 
said lists signed by them respectively." The lists of the 
clerks were required to be " cast up and the number of votes 
for each candidate mentioned in words at length," and signed 
by the clerks and two or more inspectors.^ The thorough- 
ness of the Delaware method of counting the votes ought to 
have reduced to the lowest limit any possibility of fraud or 
collusion on the part of the election officers. 

As long as North Carohna used the ballot she also pre- 
scribed a regular method for conducting the canvass. At 
sunset the ballot box was opened by the sheriff in the pres- 
ence of the candidates and the inspectors. The scrolls were 
then taken out one by one and the names written on them were 
read aloud, while each inspector kept a tally of the number 
of votes received by each candidate." 

In most of the proprietary governments there were provi- 
sions in regard to defective ballots. Thus, in Pennsylvania," 
Delaware,* North Carohna,' and South Carolina,'' baUots con- 

1 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, §§ 5, 7, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 

- 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

^ 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1 742, 67. 

* 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 

° 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

6 Act 1716, no. 365, § 3, 2 Cooper, 6S3. 



1/8 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



taining more than the proper number of names were declared 
void. Delaware also rejected those containing less than the 
required number/ In Pennsylvania ballots found " deceit- 
fully folded together," so as to contain the names of more 
candidates than a single elector was entitled to vote for, were 
thrown out.^ The laws of both the Carolinas provided that 
if two or more scrolls were rolled together and put in the box 
as one, they must " be cast away as useless and void.^ 

In a few instances we find that oflicial notices of their elec- 
tion were given to the successful candidates. Thus in South 
Carolina the wardens were required to notify them in writing 
at the church door or at some other public place, and that 
within seven days after the ballots had been counted.^ In 
Maryland the sheriffs were merelyrequired to notify the per- 
sons chosen in case they should have been absent from the 
court of election.^ 

The laws did not definitely fix the proportion of votes cast 
which should be required to elect a candidate. A clear dis- 
tinction was not in all cases drawn between the meaning of 
the words majority and plurality, and this is shown by at 
least one statute which uses the two words synonymously." 
In the middle of the eighteenth century Connecticut declared 
that all officers must receive a majority of the votes cast in 
order to be elected. If this did not occur the election must 
be decided by the assembly.' In Massachusetts,^ New 

^ 7 Geo. II, chap. 6ia, § 4, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 

^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67; Delaware: 7 Geo. II, chap. 5ia, 
Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, n8; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 

^ North Carolina: 17 Geo. II, chap. I, § 2, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177; 
South Carolina : Act 1716, no. 365, § 3, 2 Cooper, 683, " invalid and of no effect." 

* Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 

^ 8 Geo. I, chap. 42; 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Laws. 

^ See 4 Geo. II, chap. 3, Nevill's Laws, 200. 

''8 Co7inecticut Colonial Records, 453. This is the law in Connecticut at the 
present day. * Charter 1691, i Ames and Goodell, 11. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. I 70 

York/ New Jersey,- South Carolina'' and Georgia/ a majority 
seems to have been required. In the other colonies as a 
rule a simple plurality was sufficient. Thus Rhode Island 
enacted that inasmuch as there might " happen a division in 
the votes soe as the greater half may not pitch directly on 
one certaine person, yett the person which hath the most 
votes shall be declared elected."^ There can be no doubt 
that the passages just quoted from the Connecticut and 
Rhode Island colonial records place those colonies squarely 
in opposition to one another on this point, but as to other 
provinces the writer does not feel so sure of his position. 

§ 9. Return of the Writ. In order to fully understand the 
subject of the return of the writ, it is necessary to consider 
the history of England with reference to this question, for it 
was there that the custom originated, and the American 
colonies merely adopted with a few modifications the practice 
of the mother country. 

In the earliest times the return was effected by the sheriff 
simply appending to the writ the names of the persons chosen 
and those of the sureties for their attendance at the parlia- 
ment.^ This method rendered false returns so easy that a 
statute was passed in 1405, requiring the names of those 
chosen to be written in an indenture " under the seals of all 
them that did choose them and tacked to the same writ of 
the parliament, which indenture so sealed and tacked shall 
•be holden for the sheriff's return of the said writ touching the 
knights of the shire." ' But long before this time returns 

1 3 William and Mary, Bradford ed., 17 10, 17. '-^Act 1704. 

»Act 1716, no. 365, §3,2 Cooper, 683. *Act 1761. 

° 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 83. See also Pennsylvania, 4 Anne, chap. 
129, Franklin ed., 1742,67; "fair majurity," ibid.y 346; 4 Connedictd Colonial 
Records, 8; Virginia: 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236; North Carolina: 17 Geo. 
II, chap. I, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

® Cox, Antient Parliameutaj'y Elections, 125. 

^ Statutes 7 Hen. IV, chap. 15, § 5; 6 Hen. VI, chap. 4, § 4. 



J g o HIS TORY OF ELEC TIONS 

were occasionally made by indenture. Prynne refers to such 
a document as early as the twelfth year of Edward the First.^ 
In 1444 a statute was enacted which required the sheriff to 
issue precepts to the mayor or bailiff of every city or borough 
within his county, and ordered them to return the precepts 
by indenture to the sheriff, so that the latter might make 
return of the writ." Although the statute of 7 Henry IV 
seems to require the indenture to be signed by all the voters 
participating in the election, the custom soon arose of hav- 
ine- a few of the electors sign in behalf of the rest.^ This 
practice has been continued almost down to the present day, 
although in recent years the original method of return by 
endorsement of the sheriff on the back of the writ has been 
revived.* 

In the general elections of the Puritan colonies there was 
no necessity for any form of return, unless the sending of 
the proxies to the capital town may be regarded in that 
light. Still in Massachusetts, although no writs were issued 
for the election of deputies, we find that the constables of 
the towns were required to make return under their own 
hand.' As a natural consequence of the writ and precept 
system of the provincial government, the selectmen of the 
towns made their returns to the sheriffs of the counties, and 
the latter in turn notified the secretary at least one day be- 
fore the sitting of the general court." 

Unlike her northern neighbors, Hartford provided for the 

^ Prynne, Brevia Parlianientaria, 190. ^ 23 Hen. VI, chap. 14. 

^ See Cox, Antient Parlianienta7-y Elections, 131, and preceding pages, where 
the subject is thoroughly discussed and the above view supported. 

* 2 De Franqueville, Le Gouvern?heni et Le Parlement Brittaniques, 446. 

5 4 Massachusetts Colonial Records, pt. i, 326; 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 
356; Laws, ed. 1660, 25, ed. 1814, 97. Also i New Hampshire Provincial 
Papers, 408. 

^ Laws, 1692-3, chap. 38, i Ames and Goodell, 89. For forms, see Appendix 
A of this work. 



AV THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



I«I 



issue of writs, and under the Constitution of 1638 returns 
were made by the constable endorsing on the back of his 
warrant, under his own hand, the names of those elected.^ 

Among the colonies which followed the English method of 
elections, the earliest statutory provision in regard to returns 
is found in Virginia. By this the sherifif was simply directed 
to make a return before the sitting of the assembly by sub- 
scription and "the major part of the hands of the electors."' 
Subsequent laws required the return to be made by endorse- 
ment on the back of the writ, according to a specified form.'* 
The law in Georgia was similar, except that an election 
officer was forbidden to return himself.* In Maryland the 
earlier returns were signed by all the freemen participating 
in the election.^ The general election law of 1678 provided 
that the four persons elected in each county should be re- 
turned by four separate indentures made between the sheriff 
on the one hand and the freemen electing on the other. It 
was required that these indentures should bear the date of 
the day of election, and mention the time and place of the 
same." After 1715 two indentures were provided for each 
candidate, each instrument bearing the hands and seals of 
both the sherifit" and the electors.' The writer has found no 
legislation on this subject in New York beyond that con- 
tained in the law of 1 1 Will. Ill, which provided that the 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, 21. 

^5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii, i Hening, 411. See also 14 Car. II, Act i, 2 
Hening, 82. 

3 II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 7, 3 Hening, 241. 

♦Act 1761. 

^ See Maryland Archives, l Proceedings a7id Acts of Assembly, where a number 
of these are given. 

^ Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60. Also 
4 William and Mary, chap. 76; 4 Anne, chap. 35; Appendix A of this work. 

'' 8 Geo. I, chap. 42, Baskett ed., 1723, 121 ; 2 Charles Loid Baltimore, chap. 1 1, 
Bacon's Laws. 



J 32 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

persons elected should be returned "by Indentures sealed- 
betwixt the said sherifis and the said Chuser so to be made.'" 

Returns were made in Pennsylvania by a pair of indent- 
ures sealed between the sheriff or the judges and six or more 
of the electors." ^ Such was the rule for assemblymen, com- 
missioners and assessors, as well as in regard to the double 
number of persons chosen for the ofhces of sheriff and coro- 
ner.'^ This, as we have seen, was substantially the practice 
in England at that time. Toward the close of the colonial 
period a law was enacted requiring that as soon as all the 
votes had been counted, the sheriff should call in four repu- 
table freeholders as assistant judges. Indentures were then 
sealed between the assistant judges and the sheriff as one 
party, and at least six inspectors as the other.* Six years 
after this law, a Delaware statute provided that indentures 
should be sealed between the sheriff or coroner and at least 
two inspectors together with four of the electors." 

In a few of the colonies the laws required that returns 
should be addressed to a particular ofhce or ofhcer. Thus, 
in Maryland, sheriffs were directed to certify one part of 
each indenture " and transmit it to the Chancellor, close 
sealed up under his hand and seal, and directed to the Lord 
Proprietary of this Province and alsoe the said Chancellor.'"'' 
A subsequent statute ordered that the return should be ad- 
dressed to the governor or to the keeper of the great seal of 
the province.^ The other part of the indenture was always 

^ Chap. 74, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 28. 
2 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

^ Ibid., chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105; 2 Geo. I, chap. 269, Franklin ed., 
1742, 293. 

* 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, § 11, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 

^ 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, Adams ed., 1797, 500. 

^ Act 1678, Maryland Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Asserahly, 60. 

' 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, chap. 11, Bacon's Laws. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 183 

kept by the sheriff for his justification. In Virginia, how- 
ever, returns were made to the secretary's office at James 
City,^ at least one day before the date mentioned in the writ." 
In South CaroHna returns were made to the master in chan- 
cery within ten days after an election."^ 

In Pennsylvania the practice in this matter was slightly 
different. One of the two indentures used in certifying the 
return of assemblymen was delivered to the governor and 
the other to the assembly,' while the returns of the double 
number of coroners and sheriffs were sent to the governor, 
who had the power of appointing these ofificers.^ But in the 
case of the commissioners and assessors the returns were ad- 
dressed to the justices at the general sessions of the peace," 
and entered on the records in the sessions' minute book by 
the clerk of the justices. The reason why the indentures of 
assemblym-en were thus addressed seems to be that they 
served a twofold purpose, viz., as a certificate of election, 
and as a power of attorney enabling the newly chosen mem- 
bers to act for their constituents. 

It may be inferred that the provisions just enumerated in 
regard to the transmission of returns were derived from stat- 
utes in force at that time in the mother country. Doubtless 
many of the details not covered by the colonial statutes were 
regulated according to the English custom. Some time be- 
fore the date set for the assembling of the newly chosen par- 
liament, and with all convenient expedition within a period 
of fourteen days after an election, the sheriff was required to 
make return, either in person or by deputy, to the clerk of 
the crown in the high court of chancery. For the entry of 

1 14 Car. II, Act 1, 2 Hening, 82. ^ 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 9, 3 Hening, 236. 

^ 23 Geo. II, no. 885, § 6, 4 Cooper, 98. 

* 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

5 4 Anne, chap. 153, Franklin ed., 1742, 105. 

^ II Geo. I, chap. 269, Franklin ed., 1742, 293; Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 131. 



1 84 



HISTORY OF ELEC7V0NS 



the return the sheriff was to pay the ancient and lawful fees 
of four shillings for every knight of the shire, and two shill- 
ings for every citizen, burgess or baron of the Cinque Ports 
whom he returned. The charges were paid by the king out 
of his account in the exchequer.' The clerk of the crown 
was required to enter every return and amendment within 
six days after receiving the same, in a large book to which 
all persons had free access at reasonable times.'- 

It might sometimes, happen that two or more candidates 
received exactly the same number of votes, and the question 
would then arise' as to which one should be returned. In Eng- 
land the solution of this problem caused considerable difficulty 
to the returning officers. In 1625, for example, the mayor of 
New Lymington made return that two candidates had re- 
ceived the same number of voices, and he would therefore 
leave the decision to the House of Commons. This seems 
to have been usually done, but at the present day the ques- 
tion is settled so far as the United Kingdom is concerned by 
the act of 1872. It gives the sheriff, who is generally dis- 
qualified in other cases, a casting vote if there is a tie be- 
tween two or more opposing candidates.^ 

This question seems to have arisen in but two of the Amer- 
ican colonies, and in both of them it was decided that the 
sheriff could return whichever one of the candidates he 
thought fit. In Virginia his casting vote was at first made 
conditional on the fact of his being a freeholder,* but after 
1763 this was not necessary.'' If it appeared on a scrutiny 
before the House of Burgesses that the petitioner and the 
, sitting member had an equal number of votes, and if the 
officer who took the poll declared on oath that if the votes 
had been found equal at the time of the election he would 

' Statute 10 and ii Will. Ill, chap. 7. 2 statute 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 7. 
^ 2 De Franqueville, Le Gouvernment et Le FarletJtenf Brittaniqties, 444. 
*4 Anne, chap. 2, § 4, 3 Hening, 236. ^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, 7 Hening, 519. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 1 85 

have returned the petitioner, then the petitioner was declared 
to have been chosen/ The privilege of a casting vote was 
also granted in North Carolina, but it was expressly pro- 
vided that in no other case could the sheriff have a voice in 
the election of a burgess." 

§ 10. Provisions against Fraud. Many of the provisions 
that were framed for the express purpose of preventing fraud 
have been enumerated in other parts of this work. Some of 
the special provisions which did not conveniently fall under 
any of the preceding subdivisions will be considered in the 
present section. For example, in New York the court of 
election was required to be held in the most public and usual 
place in the county. The poll could be taken only at the 
place of election, and could be neither delayed nor protracted 
until all the electors had voted." Returning officers were 
forbidden to take any reward or fee for their services.^ 

A case which occurred in New Jersey in 1725 affords a 
good example of the abuses which the law requiring the con- 
sent of the candidates to an adjournment of the polP was 
aimed to prevent. It appears that the sheriff of Burlington 
in his desire to favor a particular candidate kept a poll open 
for a fortnight and adjourned it to the very edge of the 
county Avithout the consent of the other candidate, who was 
a Quaker. So gross was the partiality of this action that 
both parties united in passing a law against similar occur- 
rences in the future." 

In none of the American colonies has the writer found a 
trace of the English custom of allowing the justices of the 
assize to take inquest against a sheriff in order to test the 

' 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, § 12, 7 Hening, 519. 

* 17 Geo. II, chap. 1, § 11, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

3 II Will. Ill, chap. 74, §§ 4, 7, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 28. * Ibid., § 3. 

5 For example, New Jersey; 12 Geo. I, chap. 4c, Nevill's Laius, 142. 

6 Governor Burnet to the Lords of Trade; 5 New York Colo?iial Documents, 767. 



J 3 5 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

truth of his return and permitting the latter to traverse an 
office found.i 

As a further means of preventing fraud a few of the colon- 
ies followed the English precedent,^ by requiring that copies 
of the poll must be delivered on demand to persons who 
were willing to pay a reasonable charge for the labor of 
writing them. This was the rule in Rhode Island/ New 
York/ and New Jersey/ Attested copies of the poll could 
be obtained on demand of the candidates in both Virginia^ 
and North Carolina/ 

Subsequent legislation, in Virginia at any rate, seems to 
have done away with the practice of requiring copies of the 
poll to be delivered to the candidates. Instead, the sheriff 
was required within twenty days after the election to faith- 
fully deliver upon oath "unto the clerks of the same county 
court attested copies of the original poll of such election, 
without any embezzlement or alteration, to be recorded 
among the records of such county court."** A similar plan 
had been adopted in England some years previously, except 
that in the mother country the poll books were to be pre- 
served among the records of the sessions of the peace." In 

1763 and thereafter the sheriff was ordered to deliver to the 

> 

1 See Statutes 1 1 Hen. IV, chap, i ; 6 Hen. VI, chap. 4. 

2 See Statute 7 and 8 V/ill. Ill, chap. 25, § 6. 
^Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

^ 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 74, § 8, Van Schaack's Laws, 28. 

° 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, \A^i. 

^11 Will. Ill, chap. 2,3 Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 7, 3Hening, 236. "The 
sheriff shall, as soon as may be, cause a true and perfect copy" to be made, and 
shall deliver it with his own hand " to the candidate or other person applying for 
it on his behalf." 

' 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § 9, Davis and Swann ed. 1752, 177; 33 Geo. II, chap, i, 
§ 9, Davis ed., 1773, 247. By this act the attested copy must be delivered within 
ten days to the candidates or to persons applying for it in their behalf. 

^ 10 Geo. II, chap. 2, § 8, 4 Hening, 475. ^ Statute 10 Anne, chap. 23, § 5. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. I 87 

county clerk, on oath, an attested copy of the poll, and a list 
of those not sworn, with the names of the persons for whom 
they had voted. ^ 

In Pennsylvania just before the Revolution, sheriffs were 
ordered to return on demand to the House of Assembly the 
list of the taxables and the lists and tallies of the clerks.- A 
similar rule had been introduced in South Carolina a few 
years before the date of the Pennsylvania statute. The 
church wardens Avere required to attend the assembly with 
the master in chancery, who was to carry the return and 
leave with the clerk of the house a list of the persons that 
had voted. '^ In the former of these colonies there were ex- 
press statutory provisions to the effect that the votes and 
tickets of all such as refused to take the oath should be 
openly rejected. The ballots of every person swearing or 
afifirming were to be put in a box, and a ticket so received 
could not be suppressed.'^ 

§ 1 1. Contested Elections. At the meeting of His Majesty's 
Privy Council in 1684, when the New York Charter of Liber- 
ties was under discussion, the clause of that instrument which 
gave to the assembly with the consent of the governor power 
to judge of undue elections and the qualifications of mem- 
bers, was objected to on the ground that " It may be incon- 
venient and is not practised in some other Plantations."" 
Notwithstanding the opinion of the Privy Council, the present 
writer believes that he has found sufificient evidence to justify 
him in stating as a general rule that contested elections in the 
American colonies were everywhere decided by the body to 

^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 15, 7 Hening, 519. This seems to supersede the act of 
10 Geo. II. 
■^'6 Geo. Ill, chap. 8, § 9, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 323. 
^ 23 Geo. II, no. 885, 4 Cooper, 98. 
^ 13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 356. 
5 3 A^eiv'York Colonial Documents, 359. 



I 88 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

whose membership the candidate aspired. Thus Massachu- 
setts by the very. law which authorized the sending of depu- 
ties to the general court, gave them power to hear and de- 
termine among themselves any differences that might arise 
as to the election of any of their number.^ 

The general court of Plymouth reserved to itself the power 
of rejecting unfit deputies and of directing the towns to make 
a new choice.'^ New Hampshire nearly a century afterwards 
gave to the town officers the power of settling disputes in 
regard to elections, and in case of their failure to agree the de- 
cision was left to the house of representatives.'^ The Hartford 
constitution conferred upon the deputies the power of judg- 
ing of their own elections,* and it may be conjectured that 
when the general management of elections was delegated to 
a grand committee of both houses in Rhode Island, the deci- 
sion of contests was included as well as control over other 
matters.^ 

The various provisions we have enumerated refer, it will 
be noticed, only to the elections of members of the lower 
houses of the New England legislatures. The writer has 
found nothing which would tend to show how contests con- 
cerning the election of governors and other general officers 
were decided. The rule in regard to contested elections in 
the Puritan colonies was equally true in both the royal'' and the 
proprietary governments. The laws of 1682 recognized the 
right of both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature to judge 
of the elections of their own members,^ although when the up- 

■'■ 1634-5; 3 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 119. '^ Brigham, 109. 

■^ I Geo. II, chap. 107; Fowle ed., 1771, 142; ed. 1771, 166. 
^1638; I Connecticut Colonial Records, 2./^. 
5 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Elections, 78. 

^See in particular the Georgia law of June 9th, 1761, published in Appendix 
B, fost. 

'' Laws agreed on in England, chap. 3, i Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 37. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



189 



per house ceased to be an elective body its power in this 
respect was necessarily abohshed. The method of trying a 
contested election case was by a scrutiny or examination 
of the votes cast, for the purpose of correcting any errors 
that might exist in the poll. In 1737 the New York legisla- 
ture spent a month in making a scrutiny.^ Virginia recog- 
nized the English method of contest by petition of the de- 
feated candidate as well as the scrutiny," before the house of 
burgesses. 

In the three most southern colonies there were more spe- 
cific provisions in regard to contested elections. Thus in 
North Carolina, sheriffs were required to attend the assembly 
for the first three days of its sitting (unless previously dis- 
missed), for the purpose of giving information in case of con- 
tested elections, and also of showing the assembly a list of 
the votes cast for every person.^ The sheriffs, and afterwards 
the church wardens, were ordered to attend the assembly of 
South Carolina during the first two days of the session, for 
the same purpose as in the northern province, although the 
wardens were accompanied by the master in chancery.* 

In Georgia a scrutiny must be made if it were demanded, 
while returning officers were compelled upon summons from 
the commons house of assembly to attend and give informa- 
tion to the best of their knowledge of any matters or disputes 
that arose about the election of members returned by them. 
They were also required to show the poll, and were liable to 
a fine of fifty pounds sterling for refusal to do so.^ 

1 6 New York Colonial Documents, 56. The proceedings are given in full in the 
first volume of the journal of assembly, cij-ca page 700, Also South Carolina, Act 
1 716, no. 365, §§ I, 4, 2 Cooper, 683. 

■■^ 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, §§ 12, 14, 7 Hening, 519. 

•* Laws 1715, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 

* Act 1704, no. 227, § 4; Act 1716, no. 365, § 22, 2 Cooper, 227, 683; 23 Geo 
II, no. 885, § 6, 4 Cooper, 98. *Act 1761. 



J QO ^^^ "^'OR y OF ELECTIONS 

§ 12. Privileges of Voters. In three of the southern col- 
onies electors were granted certain privileges, in order, it 
may be supposed, that they might be the more willing to 
exercise their franchise. The writer has been unable to find 
any provisions of this sort among the statutes regulating 
elections in England during the colonial period. 

In Virginia, for example, no arrests were permitted on 
election days except for felony and breach of the peace, and 
processes executed at the election of burgesses were void.^ 
In South Carolina an elector was exempt from the serving of 
writs or processes eimdo, vtanendo, redemido, that is to say, 
during his journey to and from the polls, or during his stay 
there for the purpose of voting, or for forty-eight hours 
after the scrutiny was finished. The penalty for breach of 
this law was a fine of twenty pounds paid to the aggrieved 
party by the officer ofTending, and the nullity of the writs." 
The rule in Georgia was similar to that in South Carolina, 
and civil officers were forbidden to execute writs or other 
processes upon the body of the elector, provided he did not 
consume more than forty-eight hours upon his journey." 

§ 13. Compulsory Voting. Probably the earliest law 
enacted in the American colonies on the subject of compul- 
sory voting was that passed by the general court of Plymouth 
in 1636. It provided that " for default in case of appearance 
at the election before mentioned without due excuse, each 
delinquent to be amerced in 3s ster."^ Compulsory voting 
in this colony was required as late as 1671, if not later. In 
the revision of the laws published in that year it was pro- 
vided that " whosoever of the Freemen do not appear at 
Election in Person or by Proxy, he shall be for such neglect 

1 14 Car. II, Act Ivii, 2 Hening, 86; 4 Anne, chap. 3, § 6, 3 Hening, 248. 
^ Act 1716, no. 365, § 24, 2 Cooper, 683. ^ p^^^ i^,5i 

* II Plymotifh Colony Records, lO; Brigham, 37. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



191 



amerced to the Treasury Ten Shillings."^ Virginia was the 
only other colony which insisted upon compulsory voting 
throughout her history. The earliest statute bearing on the 
subje'ct was passed in 1646, and it speaks of the small num- 
ber of persons who attended the elections. In order to 
remedy the evil it was then enacted that all freemen absent 
without lawful cause should be fined one hundred pounds of 
tobacco.^ After 1662 the amount of the penalty was in- 
creased to two hundred pounds of the same staple.' The 
law as to compulsory voting was reenacted in 1705/ and 
again in 1763.'' 

In a previous chapter it has been explained that from the 
earliest times in Maryland attendance in person or participa- 
tion in the election of a representative to the assem.bly was 
required of all freemen.^ Later on the rule in this colony as 
to compulsory voting seems to have fallen into disuse until 
171 5, when it was revived, and all electors were compelled 
to attend the court of election under penalty of one 
hundred pounds of tobacco/ unless they could show 
sufficient cause for their absence. Whether this provision 
remained in force until the Declaration of Independence, or 
whether it fell into disuse, the writer is not prepared to state. 
Nothing that would prove the repeal of the law has been 
found. 

In Delaware, by a statute of 7 George II, it v/as enacted that 
every elector convicted at the next quarter sessions on the 
oath of one credible witness of having absented himself from 

'^ Book of General Laws, chap. v. § 4, Brigham 258. 

■■^ 21 Car. I, Act xix, i Hening, 333. 

s 14 Car. II, Act 1, 2 Hening, 82. * 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 3, 3 Hening, 236. 

5 3 Geo. Ill, chap. I, § 9, 7 Hening, 519. ^ See p. 34, ante. 

''S Geo. I, chap. 42, Baskett ed., 1723, 121 ; also 2 Charles Lord Baltimore, 
chap. II, § 6, Bacon's Laws. 



192 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



an election should be fined twenty shillings, unless he had 
been detained by sickness or unavoidable accident/ 

Outside of the four colonies already mentioned, compul- 
sory voting at general elections does not appear to have 
existed. North Carolina, we shall see, introduced the prin- 
ciple in parish elections,' In a Massachusetts statute the 
following permissive clause has been found which might 
possibly have reference to compulsory voting at the election 
of assistants, the principle being applied when the names of 
the candidates were in turn balloted upon. " In all cases 
where any freeman is to give his vote, be it in court of elec- 
tion or the like, if he cannot see light or 

reason to give it positively one way or the other, he shall 
have liberty to be silent and not pressed to a determinate 
vote, which yet shall be interpreted and accounted as if he 
voted for the negative."'* 

Under the head of compulsory voting it is perhaps well to 
include a few laws which were in force in several of the 
northern settlements during the earlier years of their history. 
Thus in Providence, under the date of 1636, we find a pro- 
vision that any one not appearing at the town meeting within 
fifteen minutes after the time mentioned by the person who 
gave warning, should be fined one shilling sixpence.* In 
a similar way Portsmouth fined freemen who were more than 
. a half hour late,'^ and New Haven imposed a mulct of one 
shilling upon all the planters who came in after their names 
'had been called." 

§ 14. Bribery and Other Means of Influencing /Voters. It 
is a remarkable fact that with one exception, and that of 
comparatively late date, there are absolutely no statutes in 

^ yGeo. II, chap. 6ia, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 118; Adams ed., 1797, 147. 
2 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 

^ Laws, ed. i66o, 78; ed. 1814, 200. * i Rhode Island Colonial Records, 13, 15. 
^ Ibid., 81. ^ I New Have^t Colonial Records, 80. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



193 



any of the New England colonies on the subject of bribery. 
Whether the reason of this was that elections were really 
purer in that part of the continent, or because the Puritans 
considered it beneath their dignity to speak of the sale or 
purchase of votes, the writer does not venture to decide. 
The absence of such laws should speak for itself. 

The single exception referred to was in Rhode Island, 
where a general act against bribery and corruption was 
passed in 1737. Judging from the provisions of the statute, 
this evil must have been prevalent to an alarming extent in 
that colony. Persons offering bribes were, declared liable to 
forfeit double the sum offered and persons accepting them 
were to be similarly punished besides being incapitated for 
voting for any ofhcer during the space of three years. 
When there was insufficient proof the accused could purge 
himself by oath, but in default of this he was adjudged 
guilty.' Ten years later a more stringent law was passed. 
By this all persons were required to take an oath that they 
had not been bribed, while the officers and justices were or- 
dered to swear that they "justly and truly abhorred the 
most detestable crime of Bribery," and that they would do 
their best to expose all persons guilty of such practices. 
Upon proof to the assembly that a single vote had been un- 
lawfully obtained by the " procurement, knowledge and con- 
sent " of any successful candidate, his election was to be de- 
clared null and void. The oath of a person giving a bribe 
was to stand against that of a person receiving one, and upon 
conviction a freeman who had been bribed was forever ex- 
cluded from voting, acting as a freeman, holding office, or 
giving evidence in a court of justice." It is difficult to 
imagine how bribery could exist under laws as stringent as 
these. 

1 10 Geo. II, Franklin ed, 1744, 193. ^ 20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 



jQ^ HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

Passing beyond New England, we find that the laws of 
New York and Maryland were silent on the subject of brib- 
ery, but that those of all the remaining colonies had some- 
thing to say on the subject. Thus, in East Jersey, notwith- 
standing the careful methods provided by the constitution of 
1683, it was thought well to order that all elections should 
be free and voluntary, and that whenever any bribe or indi- 
rect means could be proved both the giver and the receiver 
were to forfeit forever their privilege of voting or being voted 
for.^ West Jersey was almost as severe, and no person could 
be elected if he gave, bestowed or promised " directly or in- 
directly to the said parties electing; any Meat, Drink, Money 
or Moneys worth for procurement of their Choice and Con- 
sent." Persons receiving bribes could neither elect nor be 
elected for seven years, nor could they execute any office of 
trust during that period.'' New Jersey merely prohibited 
bribery in any form, and disfranchised all offenders.^ 

The aim of one of the earliest of the Pennsylvania laws 
was to prevent the crime of bribery, and its provisions were 
similar to those of the West Jersey constitution, except that 
the person bribed was also deprived of his right to vote.* In 
the Delaware government candidates bribing or treating 
electors were let off with a fine of ten pounds, while a voter 
accepting a bribe was fined half that amount. A bribe was 
defined to include a " Gratuity, Gift, Bribe, strong Drink, 
Treats, Entertainments or other Reward." " Virginia'' and 

1 Learning and Spicer, 153. 

^ West Jersey Concession and Agreement, chap. 33, Learning and Spicer, 405. 

^ 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, §§ 3, 4, Nevill's Laws, 142; Allinson's Zaw5, 69. 

"^ Laws agreed zipon in England, 1682; also chap. 58; chap. 36, Petition of 
Right, 1C93; Markham's Frame of Government, 1696; Laws, ed. Harrisburg, 
1879, 99, 122, 203, 249; 4 Anne, chap. 129, FrankUn ed., 1742, 67. 

^ 13 Geo. II, chap. 65, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 133; Adams ed., 1797, 164. 

^11 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172; 4 Anne, chap. 2, §§ 10, 11, 3 Hening, 236; 
3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 19, 7 Hening, 519. 



IX THE AMERICAN COLOXIES. I9- 

North Carolina' merely declared that the elections of persons 
who offered bribes should be null and void.'^ 

The two southernmost colonies had laws framed with the 
idea of putting a stop to all forms of influencing voters. 
Thus in South Carolina, persons coercing or bribing voters, 
or abusing or menacing them afterward because they had 
voted in a particular way, were taken before a justice of the 
peace and bound over in the sum of fifty pounds, with two 
sureties of twenty-five pounds. If convicted at general ses- 
sions, such ofifenders were fined fifty pounds.'^ The provi- 
sions of the Georgia statute were more stringent than those 
of the South Carolina law. Any person violating the free- 
dom of the day of election by arresting, menacing or threat- 
ening, or attempting to overawe, affright or force any per^ 
son, properly qualified, to vote against his inclination or 

^ 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § 8, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

'^ The language of the law respecting bribery in the former colony is so care- 
fully framed with a view of covering the entire field that it has seemed proper to 
publish it in full. 

"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, 
That no person or persons hereafter to be elected as a burgess shall directly or 
indirectly, by any ways or means at his or their proper charge, before his or their 
election, give, present or allow to any person or persons haveing voice or vote in 
such election any money, meat, drink or provision, or make any present, gift, re- 
ward or entertainment, or any promise, ingagement or obligation to give or allow 
any money, meat, drink or provision, present, reward, or entertainment in order 
to procure the vote or votes of such person or persons for his or their election to 
be a burgess or burgeses, and every person or persons soe giveing, presenting or 
allowing, makeing, promiseing or engageiiig any money, meat, drink or provision 
in order to procure such election being elected shall be disabled and incapable 
to sit and act as a burgess in that assembly, but that such election shall be void 
to all intents and purposes as if the said returne or election had never been made." 
1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 1 72. 

As though the above provisions were not sufficient, the act of 4 Anne added a 
clause forbidding the bribery of persons in particular, or " any such county, town 
or corporation in general, or to or for the use, advantage, benefit, imploiment, 
profit or preferment " thereof. 

^ Act 1 716, no. 365, § 23, 2 Cooper, 6S3. 



J q5 his TORY of ELE C TIONS 

conscience, or obtaining any vote by bribery, or who should, 
after the election was over, menace, " despightfully use " or 
abuse any person for voting as he desired, such persons, upon 
sufficient proof presented before two justices of the peace, 
should be bound over to the next general sessions. If con- 
victed at his trial, the offender was to forfeit not more than 
twenty pounds. Returning officers were forbidden to influ- 
ence, or even attempt to influence or persuade, any elector 
so as to prevent him from voting as he had first intended.^ 

In addition to the provisions already enumerated concern- 
ing attempts to influence voters by means other than bribery, 
we find that in New Jersey a fine of ten pounds was imposed 
on persons who " Either by Assertions or False Reports of 
any of the Candidates, either in Words or Message or Writ- 
ing, or in any other Manner, and endeavour to frighten or 
by indirect Means persuade any Elector to give or dis- 
suade any Elector from giving his Vote.'" 

In Pennsylvania persons were forbidden to disturb the 
freedom of an election day by menacing voters or by threaten- 
ing them with force of arms. Candidates offering to serve for 
nothing or for less than the law allowed in order to influence 
voters, were hable to a fine of five pounds.^ In this province 
the elections of sheriffs and coroners furnished an excellent 
opportunity for influencing voters. We learn from a law 
passed with a view of preventing bribery and corruption on 
these occasions that it was a common practice to miake 
electors vote in a particular manner " by giving them strong 
Drink and using other Means inconsistent with the Design 
of voting freely at Elections by Means whereof many un- 
guarded Persons are unwarily drawn in to engage their Votes 
and rendered altogether incapable of discharging their Duty 

' Act June 9th, 1761. ''■ 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, § 5, Nevill's Laws, 142. 

■' 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franldin ed., 1742, 67. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. ip7 

in that sober and weighty manner the Occasion requires, but 
become more particularly disorderly at these Times whereby 
great Confusions and Mischiefs arise." With a view of put- 
ting a stop to these abuses a fine of five pounds was imposed 
on persons bribing or bribed. Candidates guilty of such 
practices could not be elected to office for a year, and were 
also subject to a fine of ten pounds.' 

In England the laws against bribery were almost as strin- 
gent as those in the colonies. A resolution of the House of 
Commons in 1677 touched upon the subject with special ref- 
erence to excessive treating of voters. It was forbidden that 
after the test of a. writ any meat or drink exceeding " the 
true value " of ten pounds should be given to electors in any 
place except at the dwelling place or habitation of a candi- 
date. That was defined to be the place where he had lived 
for six months previous to the election. The election of a 
person offering bribes in this or any other way was declared 
void.'^ In 1 700-1 the lending of money to a corporation 
without interest with intent to influence the election of such 
corporation was declared to be an unlawful and dangerous 
practice.^ General statutes on the subject of bribery were en- 
acted some years afterward.* Both the electors and the re- 
turning officers were required to take an oath that they had not 
been bribed ; if they had been, they were declared guilty of 
perjury, and were rendered forever afterward incapable of 
voting or holding office or franchise, and forfeited the 
sum of five hundred pounds as well. Offenders were indem- 
nified if within a year after the election they turned king's 
evidence against a person who had taken a bribe. Under 

1 25 Geo. II, chap. 6, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 237. 
^ 9 Resolutions and Orders of the Ilotise of Commons, 411. 
^13 Resolutions and Orders of the House of Com7nons, 400. 
* Statutes 2 Geo. II, chap. 24; 9 Geo. II, chap. 38. 



J g g HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

this law an attempt to make an elector promise that he 
would refrain from voting was just as much an act of bribery 
as was an attempt to influence him to vote in any particular 
way. 

§15. Sanction of the Election Laws. Without exception 
the American colonies enforced their election laws by means 
of a series of penal sanctions. The crimes punished by 
these provisions were numerous and included any neglect, 
omission, or failure of duty upon the part of the persons or 
ofiEicers intrusted with the execution of the election laws. 
The admission of the vote of an unqualified person, the mak- 
ing of a false return, or the failure to make any return at all, 
were some of the offenses which rendered a sheriff liable to a 
penalty. On the part of an elector, illegal voting, fraud, re- 
peating, the putting of more than one vote into a ballot box 
and voting for a candidate known to be unqualified,' were 
among the crimes reached by the punitive sanctions of these 
laws.^ 

The penalties were almost always of a pecuniary nature, and 
it seems unnecessary to go into the subject at any great length. 
Suffice it to say that the fines ranged in amount from a few 
shillings^ to three hundred pounds or more/ Usually ster- 
ling was meant, but in some instances, in the more southern 
colonies, "current money "^ or "proclamation money"" 

^ Massachusetts, Laws, ed. 1660, 25. 

^ North Carolina, 17 Geo. II, chap, i, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. It is 
not possible to give references to all provisions relating to this subject, as they are 
contained in almost every statute which has been mentioned in this work. In 
the laws the subject was treated in much the same way as in England. The index 
to Troward, Elections, gives a list of the various offenses which were punishable 
in the mother country. 

^Plymouth, Laws, 1636, 11 Plymouth Colony Records, 10. It is worthy of 
note that the fines in New England were much smaller than in the other colonies. 

* New Jersey, 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Lazvs, 6g. 
" Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, § 2, 3 Hening, 236. 

* North Carolina, 17 Geo. II, chap, i, § 6, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. igg 

were specified as the rates at which the payments of fines 
should be made. In Virginia, and also in Maryland, the fines 
were usually payable in kind, ranging in quantity from one 
hundred' to thirty thousand pounds of tobacco.^ This last 
penalty was imposed by the Bacon Assembly upon sheriffs 
making false returns. Although thirty thousand pounds was 
an extraordinarily large amount, there seems to have been 
some need of it, for more than twenty years before, in 1676, 
an assembly had found it necessary to inflict a fine of ten 
thousand pounds of tobacco upon sheriffs neglecting their 
duty.'^ 

The proceeds of these fines were applied to a great variety 
of uses. As a general rule one-half went to the sovereign for 
the support of the government,* or in the proprietary colonies 
to the lords proprietors'^ or to the governor.'' In many cases 
the other moiety went to the' person informing and suing for 
it.'' New Jersey divided one particular fine into thirds, giv- 
ing one portion to the king, another to the aggrieved party, 
and the remaining third to the poor,^ while Massachusetts 
assigned one moiety to the poor and the other to the in- 
former." In cases of bribery in South Carolina the fines 
went to the benefit of the poor of the parish.'" 

In Georgia the proceeds of fines were used to defray the 
expense incurred by the sessions of the general assembly," 

^ 21 Car. I, Act xx, i Hening, 333. ^ Bacon's Laws, Act vii, 2 Hening, 356. 

^ 5-6 Commonwealth, Act vii. i Hening, 411. 

* Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236. 

^ South Carolina, Act 1704, no. 227, § 4, 2 Cooper, 249. 

^ Pennsylvania, 4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 

^ Virginia, 4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 236. An earlier statute gave the ag- 
grieved party the first claim on the second moiety. 1 1 Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hen- 
ing, 172. 

® 12 Geo. I, chap, 40, § 2, Nevill's Laws, 142. 

^ Laws, 1738-9, chap. 26, 2 Ames and Goodell, 980. 

10 Act 1716, no. 365, § 23, 2 Cooper, 683. " Act 1761. 



200 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

while the neighboring colony of South Carolina punished a 
sheriff guilty of an untrue return by making him forfeit ten 
pounds to the lords proprietors for each false vote and a 
hundred pounds to the persons who should have been re- 
turned.^ North Carolina applied the proceeds of penalties 
for false returns towards the building of any court house, 
church or chapel which the governor should designate. If 
however, no such building Vv^as needed, then the lords pro- 
prietors and the aggrieved parties were the beneficiaries.'^ 

The method to be employed in recovering a fine was not 
always specifically described. When an informer sued, the 
form of action was stated to be a qui tarn action, in which the 
plaintiff described himself as suing for the commonwealth as 
well as for himself.^ .Virginia prescribed the means of re- 
covery to be " with full costs of suit by action of debt, byll, 
plaint, or information in any court of record in his majesties 
collony and dominion wherein noe essoigne, protection or 
wager of law, privilege or imparlance shall soe be admitted 
or allowed."* This provision was modelled upon the phrase 
which appears in a similar connection in almost all the Eng- 

^ Act 1704, no. 227, § 3, 2 Cooper, 249. 
"^ Laws, 1 71 5, 2 North Carolina Colonial Records, 213. 

3 1 Salkeld, J 29, n; i Viner, Abridgement, 197. South Carolina, 23 Geo. 11, 
no. 885, 4 Cooper, 98. 

* II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening, 172. This statute contains the following com- 
prehensive definition of a violation of duty on the part of an election officer : 

" If any sheriff or his officer, before the returne be endorsed on the writt, shall 
deny and refuse to take the poll in writeing as aforesaid if it be demanded by any 
candidate or ffreeholder, or shall refuse to give copyes of the poll to such candi- 
date or candidates, if by them required, or shall neglect to give legall notice of the 
election time and place of election, or shall make a false or double returne of those 
who ai;e not duly elected burgesses as aforesaid, or who shall not make any re- 
turn, or shall make returne in any forme then is herein expressed, he or they 
so offending in any one of the premises, and being thereof lawfully convicted, 
shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of fforty pounds sterling 
monev." 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 20I 

lish statutes passed during the colonial period. The only 
difference was that in the mother country the courts of record 
were limited to those at Westminster Hall, and one impar- 
lance was sometimes permitted/ In nearly all the colonies 
the method of recovery was by " bill, plaint or information."^ 

In actions for recovery of penalties for illegal voting, two 
colonies placed the onus probandi on the defendant.^ Rhode 
Island enacted that certain fines incurred by towns were to be 
recovered by an action on the case brought by the treasurer 
and the proceeds devoted to the use of the colony.^ Other 
fines were levied by warrant of distress.'^ Delaware enforced 
judgments against persons incurring fines of twenty shillings 
for making a second attempt to vote, by seizing their goods, ■ 
or in case they had none, by putting them in gaol until the 
judgment was satisfied.** 

Besides the punishments inflicted on persons convicted of 
bribery, which have been enumerated in the preceding sec- 
tion' there were several instances where the penal sanctions 
of the election laws amounted to more than a. fine, and in- 
volved physical punishment of some sort. These sanctions, 
however, applied to delinquent electors rather than to offend- 
ing officials. 

Rhode Island with her usual severity did not spare voters 
guilty of fraud. They were at first liable to a fine of five 
pounds or twenty-one stripes upon their naked backs, or im- 

1 See, for example, Statutes i Geo. I, Stat. 2, chap. 56 : 6 Anne, chap. 7; 7 and S 
Will. Ill, chap. 25; 12 and 13 Will. Ill, chap. lO. 

2 For example, Massachusetts Bay: i Ames and Goodell, 88; Pennsylvania: 25 
Geo. II, chap. 6, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 237; Delaware : Adams ed., 1797, 429; 
Maryland: 8 Geo. I, Baskett ed, 1723, 121 ; North Carolina: Laws, 1715, 2 North 
Carolina Colonial Records, 213; Georgia: Act 1761. 

3 Virginia: 3 Geo. Ill, chap, i, § 7, 7 Hening, 519; North Carolina: 17 Geo. II, 
chap. I, § 7, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 177. 

* 6 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 323. ^ 12 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 217. 
6 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 207, § 6, Adams ed., 1797, 500. ' See p. 192 etseq.,ante. 



202 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

prisonment for a month/ The penalty was soon increased 
to forty stripes or imprisonment in the stocks, and conviction 
was secured upon confession or upon the testimony of two 
witnesses that the voter had put more than one paper in the 
hat. The governor and council could inflict these punish- 
ments at the general court of election, but the assistant 
justices and wardens had jurisdiction at town or quarter 
meetings. The latter officers could not subject an offender 
to a fine of more than forty shillings or to more than twenty- 
one stripes. They could, however, set him in the stocks." 
In 1739 the penalty for putting in more than one ballot was 
a fine of forty shillings with disfranchisement for three years." 
South Carolina punished persons voting illegally by six 
months' imprisonment without bail.* In default of payment 
of a fine imposed on conviction for an attempt to illegally 
influence a voter, Georgia provided for imprisonment with- 
out bail or mainprize.^ 

^ 4 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 195. ^ Ibid., 207. 

^ 12 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 217. ^ Act 1704, ^lo. 227, § 6, 2 Cooper, 249, 

^Act 1761. 



PART II.— LOCAL ELECTIONS. 



CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF LOCAL ELECTIONS. 

Under the subject of general elections it has been found 
expedient to touch upon the manner of choosing some of 
those colonial officers whose functions were local rather than 
general in character. Such for example were the associates 
in Plymouth, and the sheriffs, coroners, commissioners and 
assessors in Pennsylvania, whose duties were confined to the 
county in which they were elected. The reason for treating 
these officers in that connection was that they were chosen 
by persons possessing the county franchise rather than the 
town franchise, and also because in the latter colony they 
were voted for at the same time and place as the members 
of the legislature. In Pennsylvania and Delaware the in- 
spectors were essentially local officials chosen by the hun- 
dreds of each county ; but their duties were so intimately 
connected with the management of general elections that it 
was deemed advisable to consider them in that connection. 

It is not my intention to give the subject of local elections 
a treatment so exhaustive as has been bestowed on those at 
which the general officers of the colonies were chosen. The 
reason for this is that although the various town, vestry, 
manor, city and borough elections were to some extent gov- 
erned by statutes general in their nature, it is none the less 
reasonable to suppose that each locality followed its own 
judgment in regard to matters of detail. To engage in a 
thorough investigation of the subject would, therefore, ne- 



cessitate greater labor and more extended research than is at 
present within the power of the writer. Accordingly, in the 
following pages no attempt will be made to give more than a 
rough sketch of the methods of conducting local elections, 
as laid down by statutes of general import. This will be 
done in the hope of furnishing a basis of comparison with 
the system of choosing general officers, rather than with a 
view of exhausting the subject. Neither has it been thought 
necessary to consider in detail the subject of military elec- 
tions, in which the citizens at large had sometimes a voice. 
For example, in Massachusetts an order of the general court 
gave all the freemen of the colony a vote in the election of 
the officers of the trainbands.' This proves that the suffrage 
for military officers was not always restricted to enlisted 
men.^ Outside of the Puritan colonies the officers of the 
militia were generally appointed, and when they were elected 
it was probably by the soldiers themselves. 

§ I . Town Elections. It may perhaps be stated as a gen- 
eral proposition, that so far as the election of local officers is 
concerned, the New England town of to-day does not differ 
very much from its predecessor of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries. From the earliest times the more im- 
portant town officers have been elective, and that by a popular 
suffrage. 

Thus, for example, an early enactment of the general 
court of Plymouth required " constables for each part and 
other inferiour officers " to be chosen annually by the free- 
men.'* A law passed in 1658 would seem to indicate that 

^ 1647, 2 Massachusetts Colo7iial Records, 191. 

^ See also Plymouth Laws, 1667, Brigham, 151;! Rhode Island Colonial Records, 
98, 121; z Rhode Island Colonial Records, no; i Connecticut Colonial Records, 
409; 3 Ne%v York Colonial Documents, 6^t). 

^ Laws, 1636, II Plymotith Colony Records, 7; Brigham, 37. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. ' 205 

the town ofincials had to be confirmed by the general court.' 
An order of 1652 commanded that "in every town three or 
five Celectmen be chosen by the Townsmen out of the free- 
men such as shalbee approved by the court for the better."'^ 
In Massachusetts by an order of 1635-6 the towns were 
given power to elect their own ofticers, such as selectmen, 
surveyors for the highways, constables, ctc^'' Under the 
charter of 1691 the inhabitants of the towns were called to- 
gether annually for the purpose of electing a town clerk and 
three, five, seven or nine selectmen/ After 1700 a treasurer 
was also chosen by each town,'' though before that time a 
treasurer was elected for each county by the votes of those 
possessing the town suffrage.** The first provincial legisla- 
ture of New Hampshire passed a law^ providing that an an- 
nual meeting should be held in each town for the election of 
constables, selectmen, jurors and other officers.'' 

The towns of Rhode Island elected a large number of 
local officers, mcluding among others a town council.*' In 
the four towns of that colony which had first been settled, the 
chief judicial officer was one of the assistants, and as such 

^ " Other inferiour officers, as constables, grandjurymen and surveyors for the 
highwaies, bee then also confeirmed, if approved by the Court." Laws, 1658, 
Brigham, 109. 

''■Laws, 1662, Brigham, 138. See Book of General Laws, 1671, Brigham 260, 
264, for provisions concerning the annual elections of selectmen and constables. 

^ I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 172; Coffin, History of Newbury, 19. The 
maximum number of selectmen appears to have been nine. Laws, ed. 1660, 76; 
ed. 1S14, 195. 

* Laws, 1692-3, chap. 28, i Ames and Goodell, 65. 

^ Laws, 1699-1700, chap. 2, i Ames and Goodell, 385. 

*> Laws, 1692-3, chap. 27, § i, i Ames and Goodell, 63. 

■■ 16S0, I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396, 403. This statute M-as re- 
pealed, but later re-enacted in substance. 5 Geo. I, chap. 88, Fowle ed. 1761, 34, 
20[, 213; ed. 1771, 137. Ministers were also elected; ed. 1771, 155. 

* 18 Car. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 9. 



2 o6 HI ST OR Y OF ELEC TIONS 

was, of course, chosen at the general court of election.^ The 
act under which Block Island was incorporated, in 1672, 
gave the freemen of that corporation power to elect wardens 
and a " sargent.'"^ The charter of Providence, in 1649, gave 
full power to the inhabitants to rule themselves and elect 
offtcers of justice on the first second day of June in each 
year.'^ 

In the New Haven colony we find that the Fundamental 
Orders of 1643 provided for the election of as many magis- 
trates as were necessary for each plantation.* As early as 
1636 constables were sworn in Newton to act till " newe be 
chosen," so that it seems reasonable to assume that even at 
that early date local officers were elected in the Hartford 
colony.^ Under the Connecticut charter each town chose 
annually not more than " seven selectmen, one town clerk, 
constables, surveyors of highways, fence viewers, listers, col- 
lectors of rates, leather sealers, haywards, inspectors, chimney 
viewers, and other ordinary town officers."" Among the 
latter were packers of beef, pork and other goods, clerks of 
trainbands, gagers, sealers of measures, branders, appraisers 
and so forth.' 

The New England colonies were included with New York 
in the " Dominion " ruled by Andros from 1687 until his im- 
prisonment in 1689.'^ Under this government the only ofifi- 
cers elected by the people were local in character. Each 
town was permitted to meet but once a year for the purpose 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 148, 401. 

^ 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 466. 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 214. * I New Haven Colonial Records, 113. 

^ I Connecticut Colonial Records, I. ''Connecticut, Sessiojt Laws, ed. 17155 ^^2i- 

'' Ibid, 90, 91, ed. 1750, 54, 69, 240. The reader will find in i Howard, Local 
Co7istitutional History of the United States, 78-99, a list of the town officers that 
were elected in Massachusetts. 

® For his commission, see 3 Neiv York Colonial Documents, 544. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



207 



of choosing its own officers, and among them were a com- 
missioner, constable and four selectmen. The latter held 
office for two years, half of the number going out of office 
each year.' That the custom of annually electing their town 
officers was regarded by New Englanders as essential to 
their welfare is shown by the fact that a little colony of Puri- 
tans on the coast of Georgia elected their selectmen and 
other officers regularly each year.' 

In the Dutch towns of New Netherland there existed a 
system of local elections similar to those which had long 
flourished in Holland. A petition from the Eight to the 
Nineteen of the Amsterdam Chamber, in 1644, stated that it 
would be impossible for the rural districts to be cultivated 
unless the people were permitted to " elect from among 
themselves a Bailiff or Schout and Shepens, who will be em- 
powered to send their deputies and give their votes in public 
affairs with the Director and Council."'' The charter of 
Flushing, issued the following year, granted that town the 
right to " Nominate, Elect and Choose a certain officer over 
them, who may bear the name or Title of Scout or Constable 
of fflushing.'" Gravesend, by a charter granted at about the 
same time, was allowed to elect three magistrates and a 
schout subject, however, to confirmation by the governor." 
Other towns followed the custom, already referred to, of 
electing a double or triple number of magistrates, from, which 
the Director appointed one.** The reply of Governor Stuy- 
vesant to the convention of 1653 justifies the inference that 
the English towns on Long Island elected their magistrates 
without presenting them to him for confirmation.' During 

' Ordinance of Council, 3 Connecticut Colonial Records, 427. 

2 1 Stevens, History of Georgia, 380. ^ I Nezv York Colonial Documents, 213. 

•* O'Callaghan, Latvs and Ordinances of Nezv Netherland, 49. ° Ibid., 55. 

" I O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 393. 

■^ See 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 250. 



2 o8 ^IS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

the second Dutch occupation, in 1673, we find that the 
council of war sent orders to a number of towns, both in 
New York and New Jersey, requiring them to elect and re- 
turn a double number of schouts and schepens, from whom 
the council should appoint the magistrates.^ 

The Duke's Laws, under which for a time New York and 
parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania were administered, pro- 
vided that " all votes in the private affairs of particular towns 
should be given and Determined by the Inhabitants, Free- 
holders, Householders.'" Under this code eighteen overseers 
were chosen by a majority of the freeholders of each town. 
The terms of four of these expired each year, their places 
being filled by popular vote. From the outgoing overseers 
the freeholders elected a constable and returned him to the 
justices for confirmation.^ In 1666 the number of overseers 
in each town was reduced to four, and the freeholders were 
ordered to meet in their towns, and dismiss by vote two of 
the new overseers chosen that year, as well as two of the 
overseers that had held office during the previous year.* 

The Monmouth patent, issued by Governor NicoUs in 
1665, empowered the inhabitants of that town to elect their 
local officers.'^ In the more southern portion of the Duke's 
dominions we find that in 1672 Newcastle was incorporated 
as a " Balywick." The first officers were appointed, but 
thereafter a high sheriff and bailiff were to be elected annu- 
ally. The method of selection was the double nomination, 
two candidates being chosen by the people, and from these 
the governor appointed one. Four assistants might also be 

^2 ATew York Colonial Documents, 574, 577, 579, 580, 586; I A^ezv Jersey 
Archives, 125 et seq. 

^ Title, Votes, page 22. The code is published in the Charters and Laws, re- 
printed by the State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 1879. 

'' Title, Overseers, ibid., 44. * Ibid., 68. 

'•> I Netv Jersey Archives, 45. 



LV THE AM ERIC AX COLONIES. 



209 



chosen annuallyJ During the proprietorship of the Duke, 
as well as afterward, many towns received charters or patents 
giving them the power of electing officers. 

The Duke's Laws gradually went out of use, but it was not 
until after 1690 that they became a dead letter in New York. 
The writer is unable to say how far, during the period they 
were in force, the towns availed themselves of the privilege of 
electing their own officers. We shall see that in Pennsylva- 
nia and Delaware, except in the incorporated settlements, no 
general system of local elections was introduced until just 
before the Revolution. New Jersey began to develop local 
elections much earlier than her southern neighbors, but out- 
side of New England the honor of developing them into a 
permanent system belongs to the province of New York. 

In 1 69 1 the New York assembly passed a law command- 
ing the freeholders of every town to meet annually at the 
times expressed in their patents. At such meetings they 
were to choose three persons to be surveyors and " Ordrers 
of the Work for laying o-ut and the amendment of the High- 
ways and Fences," according to the rules to be prescribed by 
the freeholders.' But the indefinite language of the preceding 
act was the cause of numerous mistakes, and in 1703 another 
statute required each town to elect annually a person to 
" compute, ascertain, examine, oversee and allow the contin- 
gent, publick and necessary Charge of each County." This 
officer was called a supervisor, and in electing him each in- 
habitant of a manor, liberty, jurisdiction, precinct and plan- 
tation was given power to join his vote with those of the 
next adjacent town. The " Mannor of Ranslaerswick" was 
excluded from this last provision, and was permitted to 
choose a separate supervisor. In addition each town, manor, 
or precinct was authorized to choose two assessors and one 

^ 12 N'ew York Colonial Documents, 496. 
- 3 Will, and Mary, Van Schaack's Laws, 3. 



2 I o ^^-S" TOR Y OF ELECTIOXS 

collector. Vacancies were filled at special elections, and in 
case of failure or refusal to elect, power of appointment was 
vested in the justices of the peace.^ This was generally the 
rule with the middle colonies. A later act authorized the 
choice of special officers for the collection of quit-rents.^ 
Subsequent changes in these statutes affected only the num- 
ber of officers to be chosen, and the dates when elections 
were to be held.^ 

The manor of Rensselaerwyck was from the beginning 
treated as if it were a town. It was permitted to choose 
officers with the same names and duties as those of the. 
towns, and in addition overseers of ovens and chimneys.* In 
the course of time similar privileges were extended to the 
manors of Livingston^ and Cortlandt." In early times the 
duties of an overseer of the poor were performicd by the 
church wardens. It was not until 1773 that a law was 
enacted providing that overseers of the poor might be chosen 
in every town, manor or precinct where there was no estab- 
lished vestry.' 

In New Jersey, by a statute of 7 Anne, town or precinct 
meetings were authorized to be held for the purpose of choos- 
ing overseers and assessors of the poor.** In 1730 it was or- 
dered that an assessor and a collector should be chosen 
annually by the voters of every town, division, precinct and 
district.^ In default of an election, the justices of the peace 
could appoint to these offices. Just before the Revolution it 
was provided that not more than four overseers of the poor 

' 2 Anne, Van Schaack's Laws, 541. '■^ Van Schaack's Laws, 404. 

^ See 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 1621, Van Schaack's Laws. 

*4 Anne, chap. 151, Van Schaack's Laws, 67; also 70, 545, 568, 689, etc. 

^ 3 Geo. I, chap. 323, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 106. 

^11 Geo. II, chap. 651, Van Schaack's Laws, 192. 

' 13 Geo. Ill, Van Schaack's Z^wj, 756. 

* 7 Anne, chap. 6, Nevill's Laws, 9. "3 Geo. I, chap. 22. Nevill's Laws, 44. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 211 

should be chosen at the annual town meetings throughout 
the colony, and that vacancies might be filled by special 
elections.' In 1730 the election of four persons from among 
whom the justices of the peace should select two to be sur- 
veyors of highways, was authorized." In addition to the 
ofificials just mentioned, every New Jersey town elected two 
" chosen freeholders." It seems to have been the duty of 
these persons to aid the justices of the peace in deciding 
about the building of goals and court houses, and in certain 
other administrative matters.^^ 

Besides these elections we find in New Jersey two in- 
stances in which a locality voted upon a formal proposition 
in a manner resembling somewhat the Rhode Island referen- 
dum} In two counties the court houses had been burned, 
and in order to decide where new ones should be erected, 
special elections were held. The justices of the peace were 
ordered with the aid of the chosen freeholders to draAv up 
advertisements and have them posted in the most public 
place in every township. The purpose of these was to sum- 
mon all persons who were properly qualified to vote for rep- 
resentatives, to meet on the site of the old court house. The 
meeting must take place within forty days after the adver- 
tisements were posted, provided twenty days' notice was 
given. On the day appointed the justices took the votes 
and the chosen freeholders acted as judges. The poll could 
be adjourned from day to day for three days, until all those 
attending had voted. Then the justices added up the totals 
and the new court house was erected in the place in favor of 
which the majority of votes had been cast." 

^ 14 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws, 408. - 3 Geo. I, chap. 23, Nevill's Laius, 48. 
^ 12 and 13 Anne, chap. 17, Nevill's Laws, 32. For other functions see 7 Geo. 
II, chap. 108, Nevill's Laws, 216. * See p. 10, ante. 

'" Monmouth County, 4 Geo. II, chap. 54; Somerset County, 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 

62; Nevill's Laws, 200, 247. 



212 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS . 

In 1725 it was enacted in Pennsylvania that three com- 
missioners should be chosen for each county. One of these 
went out of office each year and his successor was chosen at 
the regular elections for the assembly. After 171 8 six as- 
sessors were chosen at the same election.^ For a long period 
in the history of that province the only local officers chosen 
by popular vote besides the inspectors, were the pound 
keepers.^ All the other town officers appear to have 
been appointed, and it was not until 1772 that the voters 
of every town in the province were authorized to choose two 
supervisors of highways.'^ In 1771 provision had been made 
for the annual election in each town of a board of three free- 
holders whose duty it was to " settle" the books of the over- 
seers,* After the following year a board of four auditors was 
chosen to examine the accounts of the supervisors.^ 

In Delaware almost all the local officers -were appointed, 
and with the exception of sherffTs, coroners and inpectors, 
the only elected officers were the assessors. At first these 
were chosen at the county elections for assemblymen," but 
after 1766 on, the day appointed for choosing inspectors,' an 
assessor was elected in each hundred. In the southern col- 
onips the only local officers subject to election by popular 
suffrage were, if we except the vestrymen and wardens, the 
constables provided for by Locke's Constitution." 

§ 2. Parish Elections. The parish was primarily an Eng- 
lish institution, and existed only in those colonies where there 

' 4 Geo I, chap. 213, Franklin ed., 1742, 156; 11 Geo. I, chap. 3, Hall and Sel- 
lers ed., 1775, 131. See p. 170, ante. 

^ 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 

^12 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444* 

* II Geo. Ill, chap. 18, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404. 

^ 12 Geo. Ill, chap. 15, § 15, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444. 

^16 Geo. II, Franklin and Hall ed., 1752, 231. 

'Adams ed., 1797,429. .^Art. 91, i N'oi-th Carolma Colonial Records, 199. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 213 

was an established church. On both sides of the Atlantic 
the parish had its secular as well as religious side, and as the 
smallest governmental division its affairs were administered 
by a vestry whose functions were somewhat analogous to 
those of the New England selectmen.' The writer has 
found no trace of a vestry outside of New York, Maryland, 
Virginia and the two Carolinas. It may be stated as a gen- 
eral rule that in each parish ministers were chosen by the 
vestry and that they became ex-officio members of that 
board. Sometimes the wardens were elected by popular 
vote, but usually this was done by the vestry. 

By the statute of 4 William and Mary, the Church of Eng- 
land was established in the city of New York and in the 
counties of Richmond, Westchester and Queens. Two 
churchwardens and ten vestrymen were elected every year 
by the freeholders of these districts." After 1746 each 
of the seven wards in New York city chose two vestrymen, 
and the membership of the board was thus increased to four- 
teen." 

Maryland received her establishment in the same year as 
New York." A subsequent statute fixed the number of the 
vestry at six and made the minister, if he was worth forty 
pounds, a member of the board. Two wardens vv'^ere chosen 
annually by the vestry and the freeholders. Two members of 
the vestry went out of office each year, their successors be- 
ing chosen at the annual meeting of the parish. The vestry 
could remove a member after giving him personal notice, or, 
if he was out of reach, by afiSxing a public notice to the 
great door of the church for three successive Sundays. All 
vacancies were, however, filled at special meetings of the 

^ See on the general subject, i Howard, Zocs/ Consiilutioiial Ilisiory of the 
United States, W] et seq. 
^Van Schaack's Z(7WJ, 19. ^ 19 Geo. II, Van Schaack's Laws, 267. 

* 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 2, Bacon's Laws. 



21 A HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

freeholders called for the purpose.^ In no province was 
there wider popular control over the vestry than in Mary- 
land. 

Continuing in geographical order, we find that a statute 
enacted by Virginia in 1643, indicates that church wardens 
were annually elected and the vestrymen were appointed.'' 
In the fohowing year, however, it was definitely stated that 
the vestry should be elected by the voices of the majority of 
the parishioners who attended the annual meeting.^ In 1661 
the number of vestrymen was limited to twelve,* but in the fol- 
lowing year the minister and vestrymen were given the power 
of choosing wardens and of filling vacancies in their own 
number.^ The vestry thus became self-renewing and, to all 
intents and purposes, a close corporation. That this change 
was not favorably received is shown by the action of Bacon's 
legislature in 1676. This body complained of the evils that 
arose from the long continuance of vestries, and with a 
view of reforming the abuse, passed a law providing that 
once every three years twelve vestrymen should be elected 
by the votes of the freeholders and freemen of each parish." 

The course of development in North Carolina was pre- 
cisely the reverse of that in Virginia. At first the ves- 
try was a close corporation,' but after 1741 twelve vestry- 
men were elected for terms of two years by the freeholders 
of each parish."^ After 1765 vestry elections were held at in- 
tervals of three years." The wardens were, however, chosen 

^ I Anne, chap. I, Eacon's Laws; Act no. 5, Baskett ed., 1723, 13. 

- 18 Car. I, Act i, i Hening, 240. ^ 19 Car. I, Act. v, i Hening, 290. 

* 13 Car. II., Act xxi, 2 Hening, 25. ^ 14 Car. II, Act ii, 2 Hening, 44, 

^ Bacon'' s Laws, Act. vi, 2 Hening, 356. 

''Laws, 1 715, 2 A'orth Carolina Colonial Records, 206. 

^ 14 Geo. II, chap. 23, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157. 

^ 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 215 

by the vestrymen, who also had power to fill vacancies until 
the next election. 

The English church was established in South Carolina in 
1 704. The first elections were held the following year, two 
wardens and nine vestrymen, being chosen in each parish. 
Vacancies were filled at special elections called with all con- 
venient speed.^ A subsequent act reduced the membership 
of the vestry to seven and gave the rector a seat in the board.' 
The rector of a parish was chosen by a majority vote of its 
inhabitants, and commissioners were given power to hear 
and settle disputed elections.' After 1712 vacancies among 
the wardens were filled by the vestry.* 

In Connecticut a system of parish or church society elec- 
tions flourished. In these a clerk and committee were an- 
nually chosen by the settled inhabitants of each parish.^ 
Ministers were also chosen at these meetings." Moreover, a 
method was provided by statute for the organization of new 
societies after other societies had been drawn off from them.' 

§ 3. Municipal Elections. So far as the writer has been 
able to ascertain, the only cities which elected their own offi- 
cers were New York and Albany. Philadelphia was a close 
corporation. In its charter the first set of aldermen and 
councilmen were named and it empowered them to appoint 
the mayor and select their own successors.* The coroner 

^ Acts 1704, no. 225, §§ 21, 22, 27; no. 241, 2 Cooper, 242, 259. 
2 Act 1706, no. 256, § 29, 2 Cooper, 287. 

* Acts 1704, no. 225, § 14; 1706, no. 256, § 21; 1712, no. 307; 2 Cooper, 236, 
287, 366. 

* Act 1 71 2, no. 307, § 7, 2 Cooper, 366. 

^4 Geo. I, 6 Connecticut Colonial Records, 33; Session Laws, 231. 
^ 2 Geo. II, chap. 33, 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 211 ; Session Laws, 362. 
' 13 Geo. I, 7 Coniiecticiit Colonial Records, 74, Session Lazus, 335; 2 Geo. II, 
chap, 41, Session Laws, 366; 9 Connecticut Colotiial Records, 218. 
^ Pennsylvania Laws, Miller ed., 1762, 10, 11. 



2 1 6 HIS TOR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

and the sheriff v/ere the only officers elected by the people, 
but this was done by virtue of their capacity as a county, and 
in this particular their action differed in no respect from that 
of the inhabitants of the other counties.^ After 1771 the 
freeholders of Philadelphia annually elected two wardens.^ 

As has been already seen,'^ the smaller Dutch towns pos- 
sessed the privilege of electing their officers, though their 
choice was subject to the approval of the Director General. 
New Amsterdam had not been granted this privilege, al- 
though it had been demanded in 1642 and again in 1649/ 
At last, in 1652, Director Stuyvesant was instructed to have 
a sellout, two burgomasters and five schepens " elected 
according to the custom of the metropolis of Fatherland." 
He, however, continued for a long time to appoint municipal 
officers, and when a protest was made he replied that he had 
done so " for momentous reasons." " For, if," he said, 
" this rule w^s to become a cynosure, if the nomination and 
election of magistrates were to be left to the populace who 
were the most interested, then each would vote for some one 
of his own stamp, the thief for a thief, the rogue, the tippler, 
the smuggler, for a brother in iniquity, that he might enjoy 
greater latitude in his vices and frauds." The magistrates 
had not been appointed contrary to the will of the people, 
because they were " proposed to the commonalty in front of 
the City Hall by their names and surnames, each in his 
quality, before they were admitted or sworn to office. The 
question is then put, does any one object?"'' Finally, in 
1658 Stuyvesant allowed the burgomasters and schepens 

^See Penn's Charter of Privileges; i Proud, History of Pennsylvania, 444. 
^11 Geo. Ill, chap. 19, § 17, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 417. ''' See p. 207, anie. 
* I O^C2\\a.gha.T\, History of New A^eiherland, 193; i Brodhead, History State of 
New York, 540. 

°2 O'Callaghan, History of New N'etherland, 1(^2., 213, 250, 311, 312; i Brod- 
head, History of the State of New York, 540, 548. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



217 



to nominate their successors, but the city did not have a 
schout of its own till 1660/ 

By the terms of the treaty of peace in 1664, the inferior 
civil ofificers and magistrates in New York were to hold until 
their successors were elected or appointed.^ In 1665 Gov- 
ernor Nicolls appointed the first mayorJ^ During the 
second Dutch occupation, when the city was called New 
Orange, a double number of magistrates were elected by the 
people and presented to the governor for appointment/ In 
1686 the Dongan charter gave the lieutenant governor the 
power of appointing the mayor and sheriff of New York city, 
but an alderman, an assistant and a constable were to be 
chosen for each ward by a majority of the inhabitants of that 
ward/ During his short lease of power Leisler issued war- 
rants for the election of the mayor and sheriff by " all Pro- 
testant freeholders." The resulting election was a farce, as 
only seventy of the inhabitants voted. The illegality of this 
action in defiance of the provisions of the Dongan charter 
was one of the chief causes of complaint against Leisler/ 
The Montgomery charter, granted to New York in 1730,' 
authorized the election of one alderman, an assistant, two 
assessors, one collector and two constables in each ward.^ 

The charter of Albany was granted by Governor Dongan 
in 1686, and it resembled in many respects the instrument 

^ 2 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, 370. 

'■^Art. 16, 2 O'Callaghan, History of N'ezu Netherland, 534. 

^ 2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 212. 

* See the Provisional Instructions for the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens of 
New Orange, 2 N'ezu York Colonial Documetits, 680. 

^ lilanual of the Common Council of New York, 1868, 7,9. 

^3 Nezv York Colonial Documents, 645, 655, 675; 2 Brodhead, History of the 
State of New York, 57S, 9. ''4 Geo. II. 

^Mamtalofthe Common Council of New York, 1868, 26; Explanatory Act: 11 
Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 



2 I 8 HI ST OR Y OF ELECTIONS 

under which the city of New York was first organized. It 
provided that six aldermen, six assistant aldermen, consta- 
bles and other magistrates, should be chosen annually. The 
mayor as well as the sheriff was appointed by the governor.'- 
In the province of Pennsylvania several boroughs were 
created by charter. Chester, Bristol, and Lancaster, erected 
in 1 701, 1720, and 1742, respectively, were empowered by 
their charters to elect annually " fit and able men" to be 
burgesses. The burgess first chosen was to be high consta- 
ble.' In 1773 Lancaster was granted the privilege of elect- 
ing annually two supervisers and two assessors.^ In North 
Carolina the electors who were quahfied to vote for the 
representative from Wilmington, were authorized to meet 
annually and elect five men, from whom the governor was to 
appoint three commissioners.^ 

1 Weise, History of Albany, 200. 

^ For the charters of these boroughs see Pennsylvania Laws, Miller ed. 1 762, 
14, 16, 18. 

3 13 Geo. Ill, chap, i, §§ 7, 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 495. 
^ Laws, J740, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 114, 



CHAPTER II. THE SUFFRAGE. 

§ I . Town Electio7is. It is believed that all persons quali- 
fied to vote at a general election could vote in town meetings. 
In New England, for instance, freemen of the colony seem to 
have been permitted to vote for their town officers as well as 
for their deputies. In the present work the deputies to the 
general court have been treated as general officers, following 
thus the analogy of those colonies which elected only repre- 
sentatives or delegates to the assembly. But the deputy of 
the Puritan colony was, perhaps, a local officer in that he 
represented the freemen of the town from which he came. 
Though little authority has come within the notice of the 
writer,' he believes that deputies were elected by the freemen 
of the colony residing in the towns rather than by those vot- 
ing in the town meetings or in the election of local officers. 
The reason of this is that the deputy was a substitute for 
each freeman of his town, and was chosen for the purpose of 
exercising the functions which were the inherent right of the 
freemen of the colony but which it was impossible for them 
to exercise directly. The present section, therefore, treats 
only of the qualifications of those voters who were not free- 
men of the colony, the latter being always qualified to vote 
for local officers.' It is a general truth that local suffrage 
was wider, more inclusive, than colonial suffrage, i. e., than 
that by which the election of deputies to the general court 
was regulated. 

^See New Hampshire, Act 1770, Fowle ed., 1771, Temporary Laws, 40. 
^ Plymouth : Laws, 1669, Brigham, 156. Massachusetts : Laws,&A. 1660, 76; ed. 
1814, 195. Connecticut: Sessio7i Latvs, 113, 269. 



220 HI ST OR Y OF ELE C TIONS 

In the Plymouth colony freeholders of twenty pounds ratable 
estate and of good conversation who were not Quakers, and 
who had taken the oath of fidelity, could vote for town officers.' 
Since many who had not taken the oath of fidelity tried to 
vote and this was found to " much obstruct the carrying on 
of religion in the publicke weale" it was enacted later that a 
record of those who had taken the oath must be kept by the 
clerk of each town.^ Som.e years later voters in towns were 
required to be orthodox in the fundamentals of religion.-' 

In 1635 Massachusetts enacted that only freemen could 
vote in towns " in actions of authoritie or necessity, or that 
which belongs to them by virtue of their freedom as receiv- 
ing inhabitants and laying out town lots, &c." This law ex- 
tended to towns, the law permitting only church members to 
vote, but it is a question whether this restriction applied to 
the electing of officers.* On account of the " ability" of 
those who were not church members it was at a later time 
found advisable to permit them to vote, provided that they 
were at least twenty-four years old.^ A subsequent enactment 
gave a vote in the choice of selectmen and other town officers 
to all /'Englishmen, settled inhabiiiants and householders, of 
the age of twenty-four, of honest and good conversation, be- 
ing rated at eighty pounds estate in a single country rate, 
and that had taken the oath of fidelity to this government."*' 

Under the provincial government of Massachusetts Bay, 
all persons coming to live in a town except " freeholders, 
proprietors of land in the town, those born or having served 
an apprenticeship or removed elsewhere," must obtain the 
consent of the selectmen of the town before they could 

"^ Laws, 1658, Brigham, 114; Laws, 1669, ibid., 156. 

"^ Laws, 1678, Brigham, 188. '^ Book of General Laws, 1671, Brigham, 258. 

*I Massachusetts Colonial Records, 161. 

^ 1 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 109. ^ Laws, ed., 1660, 76; 1814, 195. 



IN THE AMERICAX COLOXIES. 221 

vote."' Officers were elected by freeholders and other inhab- 
itants rated at twenty pounds beside the poll, " real estate to 
be set at so much only as the rent or income thereof for the 
space of six years would amount to were it let at a reason- 
able rate, and personal estate and faculty to be estimated ac- 
cording to the rule of valuation" prescribed for assessing taxes. 
Disputes on this point were settled by the moderator.' Qua- 
kers and Anabaptists were exempt from taxes for religious 
purposes, and on that account not permitted to vote on ques- 
tions concerning ministers and meeting houses.'' 

. The qualifications for electors of town officers in New 
Hampshire were the same as those in the province of Massa- 
chusetts Bay.* This is true, though one of the earliest New 
Hampshire laws declared the suffrage in town elections to be 
no wider than that existing in the elections held for the choice 
of assemblymen.^ A temporary law passed just before the 
Revolution restricted the suffrage in town elections to per- 
sons ratable according to the tax laws, for thirty shillings, 
including their polls.'' 

In each of the Narragansett towns before the charter of 
19 Charles I, freemen were admitted and disfranchised or sus- 
pended by vote of the entire body assembled in town meet- 
ing." Under the charter, towns were a long time permitted 
to exercise their option in admitting such inhabitants as 
they pleased.** Ultin^ately the distinction between the free- 

' Laws, 1 700-1, chap. 23, i Ames and Goodell, 452. 

''Laws, 1692-3, chap. 28, § 4, i Ames and Goodell, 65; 1735-6, chap. 8, § i, 
2 Ames and Goodell, 761. 

^ 1731, 2 Ames and Goodell, 620, 715, 877, 1022. 

*4 Geo. I, chap. 82, § 3, Fowle ed., 1761, 230; ed., 1771, 124; 5 Geo. I, chap. 
87, Fowle ed., 1761, 34, 201, 213; ed., ,1771, 137. 

* I New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 396, 403. 

* Fowle ed., 1771, Temporary Laws, 40. 

'' I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 53, 85, 119. 
** 18 Car. II, Franklin ed, 1744, 9. 



222 ^^IS TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

dom of a town and the freedom of the colony seems to have 
been obliterated, and the qualifications for electors came to 
be the same in both cases.^ 

In New Haven the writer has found no distinction between 
a free burgess of the colony, and a free burgess of a town.^ 
Hartford, on the other hand, permitted persons with cer- 
tain qualifications to vote in town meetings, although they 
could not be freemen of the colony.'' No one could reside 
in a town unless he was formally admitted by a vote of the 
townsmen.* It seems at first to have been the rule that any 
admitted inhabitant could vote for town ofificers, but ulti- 
mately it was enacted that besides freemen,, only an " admit- 
ted inhabitant, Householder and a man of sober conversa- 
tion with a Freehold estate, Rated at fifty shillings in the 
common list beside his person," should be allowed to vote 
in town elections, under a penalty of twenty shillings." This 
act seems to have been passed with the intention of shutting 
out all who had only a transient interest in a town. Under 
a later statute the owner of a personal estate of fifty pounds, 
as well as he who possessed a fifty-shilling freehold was al- 
lowed to vote, provided that he was twenty-one years old.** 

Outside of New England the qualifications of persons vot- 
ing for town officers do not appear to have been very defi- 
nitely fixed. In New York the term " freeholder and inhab- 
itant" is common.^ By this phrase we are probably to under- 
stand a person residing in the town and possessing a freehold 
within its limits. It does not seem reasonable to suppose 
that the word inhabitant was of wider meaning than the 
word freeholder. The two terms were intended to qualify 
each other, in order to limit the suffrage to those possessing 

^ i6 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1744, 252. - i New Haven Colonial Records, II3. 
^ Sessioti Laws, 113. * 1643, l Connecticut Colonial Records, 96. 

^ Session Laws, 113. ^ Ibid., eds. 1750, 1754, 1769, 240. 

' Van Schaack's Laivs, 3. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



223 



more than a transitory interest in the town. The same re- 
mark apphes to the suffrage at parish elections in New York 
and in the South. 

The town suffrage in New Jersey was definitely fixed in 
1766, when a statute was enacted which provided that, ex- 
cept in towns corporate, no person should vote unless he 
was a freeholder, or a tenant for years, or a householder, and 
a resident in the township or precinct where he voted.' In 
Pennsylvania the pound-keeper of each township was elected 
by the inhabitants who were ov/ners or possessors of land,^ 
but the suffrage for supervisor elections was the same as that 
for members of the assembly, though all freeholders seem 
to have been allowed to vote.' 

§ 2. Parish Elections. In general it may be stated that 
the possession of property and residence within a parish w^as 
sufficient to qualify persons to vote for wardens and vestry- 
men. 

In a few cases the suffrage was more explicitly defined. 
Thus, in New York City, vestrymen were chosen by persons 
qualified to vote in municipal elections.* In Maryland only 
those inhabitants who were freeholders within the parish and 
v/ho contributed to the public taxes and charges thereof, 
could vote.^ The parish suffrage in North Carolina was re- 
stricted to a " freeholder in actual possession of estate, real 
for his life or that of another or greater estate, either fifty acres 
or a lot in town saved according to law within the parish."" 

^ 6 Geo. Ill, chap. 450, Allinson's Laius, 287. The earlier statutes used the 
v/ords " freeholders and inhabitants, householders;" 3 Geo. I, chap. 22, Nevill's 
Laws, 44. '■^ 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 

^ Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444. 

* II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 624. 

^ I Anne, chap, i, § 8, Bacon's Laws, Baskett ed., 1723, 13. 

«5Geo. III. chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. See also 14 Geo. II, chap. 23, 
Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157. 



224 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

South Carolina was not so liberal as her northern sister, for 
she required membership in and conformity to the religion 
of the Church of England. In addition voters v/ere required 
to be freeholders and residents contributing to the public 
charges of the parish.^ 

In the Connecticut society meetings an elector was re- 
quired either to be in full communion with the church or 
else to possess the same amount of property as a voter in a 
town election.'^ Dissenters who were on that account ex- 
empt from paying taxes were not permitted to vote/ 

§ 3. Miinicipal Elections. The Dongan charter gave the 
inhabitants of each ward in New York City power to elect 
aldermen.* We have already seen that Leisler had the mayor 
and sheriff elected by the Protestant freeholders.^ The Mont- 
gomery charter seems to have gone no further than that of 
Dongan in defining the qualifications of a voter.*^ It was not 
until 1 77 1 that the assembly passed an explanatory act," in 
which it was stated that the aldermen were to be chosen by 
the freemen and freeholders of each ward. The freemen must 
have held their freedom for at least three months,** and have 
actually resided in the ward for one month before the election 
day. The qualification of a person voting in right of a free- 
hold was similar to that required in general elections. This 
was a freehold of forty pounds not held in trust for any 
body corporate or politic or for any pious or religious use ; 

' Act 1704, no. 225, § 21, 2 Cooper, 242. 

^ Fifty shillings in freehold, or forty pounds in the common list. 12 Geo. II, 
chap. 33, Session Laws, 362; 7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 211. 

^9 Connecticut Colonial Records, 218. 

'^ Manual of the Common Council of Nezv York, 1868, 9. 

5 3 Nezv York Colonial Documents, 675. 

^ Mamial of the Common Council of New York, 1S68, 26. 

■^ II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Lazvs, 620. 

^ In the city of London, liverymen and freemen must have been such for twelve 
calendar months. Statute 11 Geo. I, chap. 18. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 22 5 

and it must have been in the possession of the voter for one 
month before the day of election unless it was acquired 
within that time by descent or devise. A mortgagor could 
vote if he was in possession and in receipt of the profits. If 
not, the franchise belonged to the mortgagee. The estate 
of a voter must be situated within the war,d in which he voted. 

The qualifications of municipal electors in Albany were 
not clearly defined until 1773, when a contested election case 
was decided by the common council. A set of regulations, 
founded, it was said, upon the custom of the board, was 
adopted, and these show that the suffrage was very wide. 
Every person twenty-one years of age, and born within Brit- 
ish dominions, could vote in the ward where he resided, pro- 
vided he had been a resident of the city for six weeks. This 
was the general rule, and to it there were a few exceptions : 
a bond servant could not vote during the time of his servi- 
tude ; the votes of persons who were influenced by bribes 
were declared null and void ; aliens were prohibited from 
voting, whatever might have been the length of their resi- 
dence ; persons not naturalized, or who had not taken the 
oaths of supremacy or allegiance, were debarred ; and no one 
could vote in a ward to which he had removed just before the 
day of election. The rule in regard to residence was much 
more strictly enforced than it would be to-day, and a man 
who occasionally went out of town to visit his family was de- 
clared a sojourner, and on that account debarred from voting.^ 

Lancaster is the only one of the Pennsylvania boroughs 
whose charter clearly expressed the qualifications of an elector. 
The suffrage was restricted to inhabitants, householders within 
the borough, who had resided there for a year preceding the 
date of the election, and who had hired a house and ground 
of the yearly value of five pounds sterling.' 

' I Collectioiis on the History of Albany, 250, ct seq. ^ Miller ed., 1762, 18; 



CHAPTER III. THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL ELEC- 
TIONS. 

The statute books of the American colonies contain very 
few provisions which show in what manner local elections 
were conducted. There is greater dearth of material on this 
subject than on that of local suffrage which, in New England 
at least, was defined with some degree of precision. The 
manner in which local elections were to be called, and the 
date on which they were held, were usually prescribed, but 
beyond this no general regulation appears to have been 
attempted. The absence of statutory provisions concerning 
the management of town elections would, therefore, seem to 
show that the matter was largely governed by local custom 
and usage, that was to a great extent moulded by the influ- 
ence of the practices then current at general elections. 

§ I. Town Elections. In Massachusetts, under the second 
charter, town elections were held during the month of March,' 
while in Connecticut'' they took place in December. In the 
former colony the exact date was fixed, and notice was given 
by the constable,i while in the latter this duty devolved 
upon the selectmen.^ 

In Rhode Island the freemen of each town appear to have 
appointed a date for their local elections,^ and a fine was im- 
posed on all towns which failed to elect the required number 
of officers.* This latter provision would seem to have been 

'^ Laws, 1692-3, chap. 28, i Ames andGoodell, 65, Additional acts on the sub- 
ject of town electiors are: Laws, 1735-6, chap. 8, § 1,2 Ames and Goodell, 761; 
Laws, 1738-9, chap. 26, ibid., 980; Laws, 1742-3, chap. 28, § i, 3 Ames and 
Goodell, 47. '^ Session Laws, 11 T,. 

^Franklmed., 1744, 9. « Hall's Code, 1767, 87. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 22 7 

necessary in the other New England colonies as well, in 
view of the fact that the election of the prescribed number 
of ofificers proved a burden from which the towns would 
have been glad to have escaped. The charter granted to 
Providence in 1649 gave to the inhabitants of that town 
power to choose their ofificers of justice on the first second 
day of June of each year.^ During the governorship of 
Andros the towns embraced in his "dominion" elected their 
ofificers annually on the third Monday in May.' The writer 
is inclined to believe that the written ballot was generally 
used in New England town elections. In the Plymouth col- 
ony we find a statute providing that selectmen should be 
chosen "by papers," '^ and as far back as 1637 such appears 
to have been the practice in at least one Massachasetts town.* 
In the middle colonies town elections were usually held in 
the spring. The Duke's Laws appointed the first of April 
as the date for choosing constables.^ Thus, in New York 
they took place on the first Tuesday in April, or on the days 
expressed in the charters and patents of the several towns.*' 
In New Jersey the various local officers were chosen on the 
second Tuesday in March,' while in Pennsylvania supervis- 
ors and boards of audit were elected on the third Saturday 
of the same month.* In the latter province the election of a 
pound-keeper took place in each town on the twentieth of 
May, or on the following day if that should happen to be 
First Day.** The county ofificials were chosen in the autumn 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 214. -3 Connecticut Colonial Records, iii^l. 

'^ Book of General Laws, 1 671, chap. 5, Brigham, 260. 

* Coffin, History ofN'ewbnry, 23. = Page 70, ed., Harrisburg, 1879. 

^ 3 Will, and Mary; 2 Anne; Van Schaack's Laws, 3, 54, 756. In Albany and 
Tyron counties, as well as in the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, they were held on the 
corresponding day of May, Van Schaack's Laws, 689. 

' Nevill's Laws, 32, 44, 48. ^ Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404, 444. 

3 2 Geo. II, chap. 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. 



228 HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 

at the time of the selection of assemblymen/ while in Dela- 
ware the various hundreds voted for assessors on September 
I5th.^ 

For the purpose of electing poor officers in New Jersey, 
meetings were called at a convenient time and place on the 
warrant of any one justice of the peace.^ After 1744, how- 
ever, these officials were chosen at the regular town meetings, 
and vacancies were filled at special elections called " on a 
short day," by means of a precept from a justice/ In Penn- 
sylvania there were provisions requiring a notice of five days 
of all town elections. Advertisements were posted in the 
most conspicuous places of the sever^ towns and boroughs.^ 
These elections were generally held in the afternoon between 
the hours of three and six," though in the borough of Lancas- 
ter the hours were from ten until fourJ Ten days' notice was 
required for the elections of assessors in Delaware, and they 
must take place before six o'clock in the afternoon/ In New 
Jersey the chosen freeholders were elected in the most pub- 
lic place of each town/ This was also true of pound-keepers 
in Pennsylvania," although supervisors were chosen at a 
point as near to the centre of the township as was possible. ^^ 

In the laws of the middle colonies very little is said in re- 
gard to the procedure at town elections. In Pennsylvania 
it was provided that the voting should be by means of 
" tickets in writing.'"^ There was nearly always some provision 
in regard to the choice by a majority or a plurality of voices, 
but a precise meaning does not always attach to these terms. 

1 October ist. ^ 6 Geo. Ill, Adams ed., 1797, 429, 

" 7 Anne, chap. 6, Nevill's Laws. * 14 Geo. Ill, Allinson's Laws,ipZ. 

" Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 404, 444, 495. 

^ Ibid., i^ify. "^ Ibid., \()i. ^ Adams ed., 1797, 429. 

'' 12 and 13 Anne, chap. 18, Nevill's Laws, 32. 

^* Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 149. " Ibid., 444. ^^ ij,id_^ 404, 444. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



229 



For example, the writer has found one statute in which the 
words majority and phirality occur in the same connection, 
and are apparently used interchangeably.^ In Pennsylvania 
the persons chosen as supervisors were returned in writing be- 
fore March 25th to the ofifice of the clerk of the quarter ses- 
sions. Their certificates were under the hands of the super- 
visors of the public roads.'' 

§ 2. Parish Elections. Wherever the Church of England 
was established it would seem proper to have parish elec- 
tions take place on Easter Monday. Such was indeed the 
rule in Maryland-^ and in both North* and South ^ Carolina. 
In New York, however, vestry elections were held on the sec- 
ond Tuesday in January ,S'ilthough after 1770 the city vestry 
was chosen at the city hall on the feast of St. Michael, which 
was also the day appointed for municipal elections.^ Before 
this two vestrymen had been chosen in each ward. In this 
province the electors were called together by warrants issued 
by the justices of the peace to the various constables.® 

In Virginia no particular date was fixed for parish elec- 
tions. The earlier statutes required that warning should be 
given," while the law passed by Bacon's assembly com- 
manded the wardens to publish an election on two succes- 
sive Sundays.'" In South Carolina notice of vestry elections 

^ New Jersey : 4 Geo. II, chap. 4, Nevill's Lazvs, 200. 

^ Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 444- * 

^ I Anne, chap, i, § 8, Bacon's Laius ; Baskett ed., 1723, 13. 

*I4 Geo. II, chap. 23, Davis and Swann ed., 1752, 157; 5 Geo. HI, chap. 2, 
Davis ed., 1773, 305. 

*Act 1704, no. 225, §§ 21, 22, 2 Cooper, 242. 

^4 "Will, and Mary, Van Schaack's Laws, 19. The date for Richmond County 
was afterwards changed to the third Tuesday in March. Van Schaack's Laws, 250. 

^ 10 Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 624. 

8 Van Schaack's Laws, 19, 566. ^ 16 Car. I, Act v, i Hening, 29Q. 

^^Bacon^s Laws, Act vi, 2 Hening, 356. 



230 H^S TORY OF ELE C TIONS 

was given by public summons.^ In North Carolina, on 
some Sunday at least forty days in advance,- the sheriff 
posted notices on every church and chapel and also pubHcly 
read the election law at the door of the court house between 
the hours of twelve and one on the second day of the court 
preceding- the election. Such thorough pubhcation was 
doubtless necessary because in this province elections took 
place but once in three years, and the attendance of all ex- 
cept Quakers was required. The only valid excuse for 
absence was " bodily infirmity or legal disability," and the 
penalty for non-attendance was twenty shillings proclama- 
tion money, which could be recovered v/ithin ten days by a 
warrant from a justice of the peace.^ In case of "badness 
of weather or any other unavoidable hindrance" and "un- 
foreseen accidents" in both the last named provinces, ves- 
trymen could be elected on days other than those appointed 
by law. In such a contingency a sheriff in North Carolina 
appointed a day not less than ten nor more than twenty 
days in the future, and personally summoned the freehold- 
ers ; while in South Carolina public notice on two Sundays 
was sufhcient. The old vestrymen held over until their suc- 
cessors were elected, and, if the conditions precedent were 
strictly complied with, the election though postponed was as 
valid as if it had taken place on Easter Monday.'' In gen- 
eral it may be stated that vestry elections took place in the 
parish church, or if there was none at some convenient place.'* 
A peculiar feature of the Maryland parish meeting was 
the preliminary voting in order to determine which of the 

1 Act 1704, no.. 225, §■§ 21, 22,, 2 Cooper, 242. 

^5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 

^ North Carolma: 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., I773> 305. South CaroHna: 
Act 171 2, no. 307, § 6, 2 Cooper, 366. 

"^ South CaroHna: Act 1704, no. 225. §21, 2 Cooper, 242. Maryland: I Anne, 
chap. I, § 8, Bacon's Laws^ 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 



231 



vestrymen in office should be discharged. The law required 
that two vestrymen should go out of office each year, but 
gave to the parishioners the power of deciding who should 
be put out/ In South Carolina an election for the choice of 
a minister was called by commissioners, and returns were 
made to them within two months. If this last step was 
omitted the commissioners could declare an election void.^ 

The statutes governing parish elections contain the usual 
vague provisions in regard to plurality or majority of voices, 
one term being used about as often as the other. The 
writer thinks that parish officers were chosen by viva voce 
vote, though he is aware that in the only two instances where 
detailed regulations were given, provision is made for a poll. 

At first in New York City vestrymen were chosen in every 
ward,^ but after 1770" they were elected at the City Hall at 
eleven o'clock on the morning of the festival of St. Michael 
the Archangel. The Mayor, Deputy and Recorder presided, 
and if no poll were demanded it became their duty at the ex- 
piration of two hours, to declare who was elected. If a poll 
were required they appointed and swore in a clerk, who was 
to take it down in writing. If in two days all the votes could 
not be recorded, the presiding officer had authority to ad- 
journ the poll. The election could not be closed so long as 
there were any voters awaiting to be polled or until proclam- 
ation had been made and an interval of fifteen minutes had 
elapsed.* 

In North Carolina the course of procedure was similar. At 
ten o'clock on the morning of the election, which was held 
" at the usual place," the sheriff or his deputy made procla- 
mation and began to take the poll. The name of each elec- 

1 I Anne, chap, i, § 8, Bacon's laws. 

2 Act 1712, no. 307, 2 Cooper, 366. ^ Van Schaack's laws, 267. 

* II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, § 12, Van Schaack's Laws, 624. See also idid., 566. 



232 HISTOR Y OF ELECTIONS 

tor was entered in a book, but in all cases the full number of 
twelve vestrymen must be voted for. All votes were given 
openly, and at sunset the sheriff cast up the votes and an- 
nounced the election of the twelve candidates having the 
highest number of suffrages. In case of a tie the sheriff was 
given a casting vote. For illegal voting there was a fine of 
^^"5, half of which went to the informer and half to the poor. 
In such cases the onus probandi was placed on the defend- 
ant.i 

There were few provisions in regard to parish elections in 
Connecticut, and these disclose no vital differences from the 
methods followed in town meetings. The settled inhabitants 
of parishes met annually in the month of December for the 
purpose of choosing a new clerk and committee. Five days' 
notice of such meetings were given by the persons in ofifice.'^ 
After new societies had been drawn off, organization was 
effected at a meeting called by a warrant issued by an assist- 
ant and a justice on the demand of three inhabitants.'^ 
Town and society elections do not seem to have been very 
peacefully managed in this colony, for a law was passed im- 
posing a fine of five shillings upon all persons participating 
in disturbances at such meetings.* 

§ 3. Municipal Elections. We have seen that the free- 
holders and freemen of New York were authorized by the 
Dongan and Montgomery charters to elect certain ofiicers on 
the feast of St. Michael the Archangel. The earlier instru- 
ment prescribed a majority of votes as necessary to consti- 
tute an election, while the second declared a plurality suffic- 
ient. Each ward was constituted an election district, and no 

^ 5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis ed., 1773, 305. 

^ 6 Connecticut Colonial Records, ■^y, 4 Geo. I, Session Lazvs, 231. 
^7 Connecticut Colonial Records, 74; 13 Geo. I, Session Laws, 335. 
*2 Geo. II, chap. 41, Session Laws, 366. 



IN THE AMERICAN COIONIES. 



23; 



further provision was made beyond empowering the aldermen 
of each ward to appoint the place of election. In conse- 
quence many abuses arose, but it was not until 1771 that 
a statute was enacted explaining the manner in which New 
York City officers were to be chosen.^ 

By virtue of this law, the Mayor, Aldermen and Common- 
alty vv'ere authorized to appoint returning'ofiEicers and fix the 
places of election eight days in advance. The returning 
officer was always a resident of the ward in which he acted, 
and clerks were also appointed to take the poll, at a com- 
pensation of twenty shillings, lawful money of New York. 
Every elector was required to declare publicly whether he 
voted by virtue of his freedom or of his freehold. For re- 
fusal to so declare, his vote was null and void. Persons hav- 
ing freeholds fronting on the East side of Broadway could 
vote only in the West ward.'-' 

In the Dongan charter of Albany the provisions in regard 
to the manner of conducting elections were as vague as those 
in the New York charter. '' From the evidence submitted at 
the trial of a contested election case in 1773, we are able to 
gather some information bearing on this subject. The day 
of election, as fixed by charter, was the festival of St. Michael 
the Archangel, and the aldermen appear to have taken the 
poll on the stoops of their several residences. The elections 
began at nine o'clock in the morning, and the polls were 
open until between four and five o'clock in the afternoon. 
One of the electors testified that on going to the stoop where 
he had heard that the poll for his ward was being taken, he 

^ Both charters were published in the Manual of the Comvion Council, 1868. 

2 II Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, §§ 3, 6, 9, Van Schaack's laivs, 620. Some of the 
provisions of this act were probably taken from the English statute of 1 1 Geo. I, 
chap. 18, which regulated the elections of aldermen and other municipal officers 
within the city of London. 

^ Weise, History of Albany, 200. 



234 



HISTORY OF ELECTIONS 



found it closed. He complained that he received no notice 
of the time of closing, but as it appeared that he did not 
offer to vote until after five o'clock, and had failed to call on 
the magistrate afterwards, the common council held that he 
had forfeited his vote, because the poll had not in fact been 
closed until after four o'clock, and then only because no 
more electors had'offered to vote. 

The testimony of several of the witnesses shows that 
bribery prevailed to an alarming extent at this election. 
From five to ten pounds appears to have been the usual 
price for a vote. In two cases it appears that forty pounds 
were paid, and it was proved that one of the persons who 
had sold themselves at this price told a bystander that he 
was going to buy cattle with his money, and that " he would 
be d — d if he would vote before he had been paid."^ 

The nearest approach to a municipal election in Philadel- 
phia is found after 1771. In that year the freeholders of the 
city were first permitted to vote for two wardens, at the same 
time that they elected burgesses for the assembly. The 
names of the candidates v/ere ordered to be written on a 
separate piece of paper, and delivered to the tellers. The 
persons elected were returned by certificate " to the Mayor, 
Recorder and Aldermen at their general sessions of the 
peace," and entry was made in the minute book by the clerk 
of the court.'^ 

The laws contain no specific provisions concerning the 
manner of holding elections in the Pennsylvania boroughs. 
The day on which ofiicers must be chosen was usually fixed 
by the terms of the charter. In Chester the burgesses and 
the high constable were elected by ballot.' In Lancaster the 

^ I Collections on the History of Albany, 250, ei seq. 

2 II Geo. Ill, chap. 19, § 2, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 417. 

^Miller ed., 1762, 14. All the Pennsylvania city and borough charters are also 
given in full by Hall and Sellers. 



IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 235 

names of the persons chosen as borough officers were certi- 
fied under seal to the governor within ten days after the 
election.^ In the election of a supervisor and assessor Lan- 
caster was treated precisely like an ordinary town, except 
that the voting took place at the court house between the 
hours of ten and four. Returns were made by one of the 
burgesses." 

1 Miller ed,, 1762, 15. 

^ 13 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, §§ 7, 8, Hall and Sellers ed., 1775, 495. 



APPENDICES 



APPENDIX A. 

WRITS, RETURNS AND OATHS. 

In the folloAving pages are collected a number of the writs 
and returns which were in use at various times in the Ameri- 
can colonies. Some of the forms were prescribed by statute, 
and the writer has added copies of the writs used in calling 
the first elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 
as well as the instrument used by Governor Dongan of New 
York, in summoning his second assembly. In Massachusetts 
Bay a statute prescribed the form of the precepts which were 
addressed by the sheriffs to the selectmen of the several 
towns and of the returns made by the latter. The early 
returns in Maryland are crude examples of a return by in- 
denture. 

In regard to oaths, it should be noted that a statute did 
not in all cases lay down the precise form to be followed. 
In the case of an election officer, as a rule, it was simply 
enacted that he should swear to do certain things in a proper 
manner. On the other hand, the oaths to be taken by 
electors were usually given in full, and it is these that form 
the second portion of this appendix. The oath of a free- 
man in a New England colony was taken at the time of his 
admission, and it was therefore in one sense an elector's oath, 
because the suffrage was limited to freemen. In other cases 
the oaths were usually administered upon demand of the 
candidates or upon challenge. The occasions on which an 
oath was required are mentioned in the following pages, and 
whenever a particular oath resembles one of those used in 
England the proper reference is given. 



240 APPENDICES. 

I. WRITS AND RETURNS. 

MASSACHUSETTS.^ 

Writ for calling a great and general court or assembly. 

William and Mary, by the grace of God, of England, Scot-, 
land, France and Ireland, king and queen, defenders of the 
faith, &c. 

To our sheriff or marshal of our county of Greeting: 

WEE command that upon receipt hereof you forthwith 
make out your precepts, directed unto the selectmen of each 
respective town within your precinct requiring them to cause 
the freeholders and other inhabitants of their several towns, 
duly qualified as in and by our royal charter is direct, to 
assemble at such time and place as they shall appoint, to 
elect or depute one or more persons (being freeholders 
within our said province), according to the number set and 
limited by an act of our general assembly within the same, 
to serve for and represent them respectively, in a great and 
general court or assembly by us appointed to be convened 
held & kept for our service at the town house in Boston 
upon the day of next ensuing the date of these 

presents. And to cause the person or persons so elected 
and deputed by the major part of the electors present at 
such elections, to be timely notified and summoned by the 
constable or constables of such town to attend our service in 
the said great and general court or assembly on the day 
above prefixed by nine in the morning : and so de die in 
diem during their session and sessions, and to return the 
said precepts with the names of the persons so elected and 
deputed unto yourself. Whereof you are to make return 
together with this writ and of your doings therein under 
your hand, unto our secretary's office at Boston, one day at 

'^Lazvs, 1692-3, chap. 36; i Ames and Goodell, 80. Other forms may be found 
in this volume of the Ads and Resolves. 



APPENDICES. 



241 



least before said court's sitting. Hereof you may not fail at 
your peril'. Witness Sir W. P., Knight, our captain general 
and governor in chief and over our province of the Massa- 
chusetts Bay in New England. Given at Boston under the 
publick seal of our province aforesaid, the day of 169 

in the year of our reign. 

By his excellencie's command. 

Precept to the selectmen for the choice of represejitatives. 
SufTolk : ss. 

In observance of their majesties' writ to me directed. 

These are in their majesties' names to will and require 
you forthwith to cause the freeholders and other inhabitants 
of your town, that have an estate of freehold within this 
province or territory of forty shillings per annum at the 
least, or other estate to the value of forty pounds sterling, to 
assemble and meet at such time and place as you shall ap- 
point, then and there to elect and depute one or more per- 
sons f being freeholders within the province), according to 
the number set and limited by an act of the general assem- 
bly to serve for and represent them in a great and general 
court or assembly appointed to be convened, held and kept 
for their majesties service at the town house in Boston upon 
the day of next ensuing the date hereof ; and 

to cause the person or persons so elected and deputed by 
the major part of the electors present at such election to be 
timely notified and summoned by one or more of the con- 
stables of the town to attend their majesties' service in the 
said great and general court or assembly, on the day above 
prefixed by nine in the morning, and so de die in diem dur- 
ing their session and sessions. Hereof fail not, and make 
return of this precept with the name of the person or per- 
sons so elected and deputed, with their being summoned, 
unto myself on or before the day of abovesaid. 



242 APPENDICES. 

Given under my hand and seal at the day of 

169 in the year of their majesties' reign. 
AB of the county of 
To the selectmen of the town of greeting. 

Return to be endorsed on back of precept. 

Pursuant to the precept within written, the freeholders and 
other inhabitants of this town qualified as is therein directed, 
upon due warning given, assembled and met together the- 
day of and then did elect and depute AB and CD 

to serve for and represent them in the session and sessions 
of the great and general court or assembly appointed to be 
begun and held at Boston on the day of , the said 

persons being chosen by the major part of the electors pres- 
ent at said meeting. 

Dated in the day of 



\ Selectmen. 

J 



The persons chosen are notified thereof and summoned to 
attend accordingly. 

By me: AB, constable of C. 

NEW YORK. 

Writ calling the second Assembly} 

James the Second by the Grace of God, King of England, 
Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.. 
Supreme Lord and Proprietor of the Colony and Province 
of New York and its dependencies in America. 

To Esq., Sheriff of County Greeting. 

Wee Require Comand and strictly Enjoyne you that forth- 
with you cause all the Freeholders of your County to meett 
together in some convenient Place there to chuse one per- 

j ^ Intro dtiction to yournal of legislative Council, iv. 



APPENDICES. 



243 



son to be theire Representative for County in a General 
Assembly to be holden at the Citty of New Yorke on the 
twentieth day of October next ensueing the date hereof in 
order to consult with our Gouernor and Council of New 
Yorke and its dependencyes what Lawes are fitt and neces- 
sary to be made and established for the good weale and 
Gouernment of the said colony, and you are in 5 weekes after 
the election to have the name of the Person so Elected Re- 
turned unto the Secretaryes Ofifice. 

In testimony whereof I haue caused the scale of thf. 
Province to be hereunto afixed this 17th day of Augst , 1685. 
-Passed the ofi^ce Test, Tho. DONGAN. 

John Scragge, Secry. 

NEW JERSEY.! 

Proclamation of Govr Carteret calling the first Assembly. 

Whereas by the Infinite Goodness Providence and bless- 
ing of Almighty God this Province of New Jersey is in a 
probable way of being populated there being a Considerable 
numbei; of families already settled in several! parts of the 
same and many more that in a short tyme will come and 
place themselves vnd^^ this Gouernment, for the better prop- 
agating and Incouragement thereof I have thought fit with 
the advice of my Councill to appoint a Generall Assembly 
to begin the XXV^h day of May next Ensuing the date hereof 
for the making and Constituting, such wholsome Laws as 
shall be most needfuU and Necessary for the good govern- 
ment of the said Province & the .maintayning of -a religious 
Communion & ciuil society one ^n'^^ the other as becometh 
Christians without which it Vmpossible for any body 
Politicq to prosper or subsist. Wherefore These are in the 
Lords Proprietors Names to Will and Require all the free- 

* I New yersey Archives, 56. 



\ 



2AA APPENDICES. 

holders belonging to To make choice and appoint 

two able men that are freeholders and dwellers "Wth in the 

said Limits to be your Burgesses and Representatives for 

you, And they being Impowered by you are to make their per- 

1 sonall appearance at Elizabethtowne the 25* day of May 

\ next as aforesaid & there to join w^h me your Gouernour & 

\ my Councill to advise in the Management of the affaires that 

\are needfull and Necessary for the Orderly & Well Gouern- 

ing of the said Province hereof you may not faile as You and 

Every of you Will answere your contempt to the contrary. 

C^IVEN vndr the seale of Prouince the seauenth day of Aprill 

1668 and in the XX yeare of the Reign of Ou' Souereign 

Lord Charles the Second of England, Scotland, France & 

Ireland, King Defend^^ of the Faith &c. 

Ph Carteret. 

pennsylvania. 

Writ calling the first assembly, 1682} 

(L. S.) William Penn, Proprietary and Governor of the 
province of Pennsylvania and the territories thereunto be- 
longing: 

I do hereby in the King's name, empower and require 
thee to summon all the freeholders in thy bailiwick to meet 
on the 20th day of the next month, at the polls upon the 
Delaware River; and that they then and there elect and 
chuse out of themselves,, twelve persons of most note for 
wisdom and integrity, to serve as their delegates in the pro- 
vincial Council to be held at Philadelphia, the loth day of 
the first month next ; and that thou there declare to the said 
freemen, that they may all personally appear at an Assembly, 
at the place aforesaid according to the contents of my 

1 1 Proud History of Pennsylvania, 234. 



APPENDICES. 245 

charter of liberties ; of which thou art to make me a true 
and faithful return. 

Given at Philadelphia, the day of the month 

1682, William Penn. 

To Richard Noble, High Sherifif of the county of Bucks ; 
and the other five SherifTs likev>dse for their several counties. 

MARYLAND. 

Writ calling tJie first assembly} 

Warrt to Cap* Evelin 
Touching the Generall Assembly. 
After my hearty Commendaons &c whereas my dear 
brother the Lord Propriety of this Province, hath by his Com- 
mission to me directed in that behalfe bearing date at Lon- 
don in the Realme of England, the i i;th day of Aprill 1637 
appointed a grail assembly of all the freemen of this Prov- 
ince to be held at his town of S^ maries on the five and 
twentieth day of January next These are therefore in his 
LoPs name to will and require you (all excuses sett apart) 
to make your psonall repaire to the ffort of S^ maries on 
the said five and twentieth day of January, then and there 
to consult and advise of the affaires of this Province. And 
further to will and require you at some convenient time when 
you shall thinke fitt within 6 dales after the receipt hereof at 
the furthest, to assemble all the freemen inhabiting within 
any part of yo"^' iurisdiction : and then and there to publish 
and proclaim the said generall assembly; and to endeavour 
to perswade such and so many of the said freemen as you 
shall thinke fitt to repair psonally to the said assembly at 
the time & place prefixed ; and to give free power & liberty 
to all the rest of the said freemen either to be piit at the 
said assembly if they so please : or otherwise to elect and 

'^Alarylaitd State Archives, I Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, i. 



246 APPENDICES. 

nominate such and so many persons as they or the main 
part of them so assembled shall agree vpon to be the depu- 
ties or burgesses for the said freemen, in their name and 
steed to advise and consult of such things as shalbe brought 
into deliberation in the said assembly ; and to enter all the 
severall votes or suffrages vpon record ; and the record 
thereof, and of whatsoever you shall doe in any the premises 
to bring along with you ; and exhibite it at the day and place 
prefixed to the Secretary of the Province for the time being, 
And for so doing this shalbe yo^ warr^ Given at St. maries 
this 30tli day of January 1637. 

Second Assembly, Feby 15 1638-9'^ 
After my hearty commendation &c Whereas I have ap- 
pointed to hold a General Assembly at St Maries on the 
twelfe day of ffebruary next there to advise and Consult 
upon the enacting of Laws and other Serious affairs of the 
Province, These are therefore to will and require you at 
Some Convenient time where you Shall think fit after the 
receipt of these Letters to assemble at Kent ffort, all the 
Freemen inhabiting within the Isle of Kent and then and 
there to propound to the Said ffreemen to chuse from 
amongst themselves two or more discreet honest men to be 
their deputies or Burgesses during the next assembly ac- 
cording to the form of an Instrument which I herewith Send 
unto you, to which Instrument, which I herein Send you, to 
wch Instrument all the Said ffreemen are to set their hands, 
And if they agree not in the election, then you are to return 
upon the Instrument the names of Such two or more per- 
sons upon whome the Major part of the ffreemen Soe as- 
sembled Shall consent, And you Shall require the ffreemen 
So assembled to agree upon a Certain Contribution for the 
defraying of the Charges w^h Such Burgesses Shall Sustain 

'^ Maryland State Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assevibly, 27, 28. 



APPENDICES. 



247 



by the repairing to the assembly and together with them 
you Shall return hither the Instrument of their Election 
Signed as is appointed afore, and for Soe doeing this Shall 
be your warrant, Given at S' Marie's this 21* Decem^ 1638 
To my Loveing Kinsman Will : Braithwait 
Commander of the 



Caecilius Lord Proprietary &ca to our dear Friend & Coun- 
cillor Thomas Cornwaleys Esqi^ Greeting whereas we have 
appointed to hold a General Assembly of the Freemen of 
our Province at our Fort of St Marys on the five and twen- 
tieth day of February next we do therefore hereby will and 
require you that all excuses and delays sett apart you repair 
in Person to said Assembly at the time and Place prefixed 
there to advise and counsult with us touching the important 
affairs of our Province 

Given at St. Marys the iS^h January, 1638. 

(These were sent to four others.) 



Caecilius Lord Proprietory &ca to our trusty Ric^ Garnett 
Senior Richard Lusthead Anum Benum Henry Bishop 
Joseph Edlo Lewis Freeman and any other the Freemen in- 
habiting at Mattapanient Greeting whereas we have ap- 
pointed to hold a General Assembly of the Freemen of our 
Province at our Fort of S^ Marys On the five and twentieth 
day of this instant month of February these are therefore to 
will and require you that to-morrow or on thursday next at 
the furthest between one and two of the clock in the after- 
•noon you & every one of you be at Our Secretarys house at 
St Johns there to make such nomination and Election of 
your Burgesses for that mannor or division of Mattapanient 
for this next Assembly as you shall think fitt hereof fail not 
you Perill given at St Maries this iit^ of February 1638. 

(The like were sent to the freemen of three other hun- 
dreds.) 



248 



APPENDICES. 



Returns were made in this form: — 
14* February 1638 

Memd that this day came before me Richard Garnett 
Senior, Richard Lusthead, Annum Benum Henry Bishop, 
Joseph Edlo Lewis Freeman & Rob*^ Wiseman and chose for 
the Burgess of the hundred of Mattapanient Henry Bishop 
and have Given unto him full and free Power for them and 
for every of them to be present in their names at the next As- 
sembly as their Burgess or deputy and in witness thereof 
have hereunto set their hands. 

The mark of RiCIIARD + Garnett 
The mark of RICHARD + LuSTHEAD 
The mark of JOSEPH + Edlo 

Robert Wiseman 
The mark of AnUM -f Benum 
The mark of Lev/IS + FREEMAN 
(Similarly for other hundreds.) 



Writs for election of Burgesses for Oct. 12th, 164.0} 

Writ. 

Caecilius &ca to all the freemen of olir hundred of St Marys 
Greeting we do hereby summon you to be before our Secre- 
tary at Saint Johns on tuesday next at One of the clock after 
dinner to make election of one or two Burgesses for that hun- 
dred for the next Assembly. Given at Saint Marys 12* 
Sept"^ 1640. 
Return.''* 

15th September 1640. 

The freemen of Saint Marys hundred chose for their Bur- 
gesses the next Assembly M^ Secretary & M^ Greene. 

coram me JOHN Lewger Secretary. 

(Similar writs and returns for other hundreds.)^ 

^ Maryland State Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 87. '^ Ibid., 88. 
^ Other Warrants: ibid. 114, iiq, 121, 369, 381, 3S2. 



APPENDICES. 249 

1659' 
January 12th 
Caecilius absolute Lord and Proprietary of the Province 
of Maryland and Avalon Lord Barron of Baltimore Sz:c. To 
the Sheriffe of Saint Maryes County Greeting Whereas by 
the advice and consent of our Councell We haue determined 
to hould an Assembly of the ffreemen of our Province at 
Ml' Thomas Gerrards on the last Tuesday in fifebruary next 
ensuing there to consider of certaine things concerning the 
State and welfare of this our Province of Maryland Wee 
command you Nicholas Guyther Sheriffe of St Maryes 
County that makeing Proclamation as soone as conveniently 
may be after the receipt of this writt you cause fower dis- 
creete Burgesses to be elected to serve the said Assembly 
there to doe and consent to such things as by comon con- 
sent shall happen to be ordained and enacted in the buisness 
aforesaid so that through want of sufificient power or incon- 
siderat election of the aforesaid Burgessses the buisnesses 
aforesaid may not remaine vndon or neglected, and make 
your retourn of this Writt into the Secretaries Office by the 
Seventeenth of ffebruary next Given at Saint Maryes vnder 
our Create Scale of our said Province of Maryland the twelfth 
day of January in the Eight & twentieth yeare of our Do- 
minion over the said Province Annoque Domini One thou- 
sand Six hundred fififty Nyne.^ 



C : — Absolute Lord and Proprietor of the Provinces of 
Maryland & Avalon Lord Baron of Baltimore to the Sheriffe 
of A : Greeting these are to authorize and require you ime- 
diately upon receipt hereof to call together four or more of 
the comissioners of your County with the Gierke who are 
hereby required to sitt as a Court and dureing their sitting 

^ Maryland State Archives, i Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 381. 
'■'Other Returns: ibid, 28, 29, 88, 89, 104, 105, 128, 129, 260, 3S2, 396. 



2^0 APPENDICES. 

by virtue of your office to make or cause to be made Publick 
Proclamation thereby giveing notice to all the freeman of 
your said County who have within your said County a free- 
hold of fifty acres of land or a visible personall estate of forty 
pounds starling att least Requireing them to appeare at the 
next County Court to be holden for your County att a cer- 
taine day within a reasonable time after such Proclamation 
made for the electing &chuseing of Deputyes and Delegates 
to serve for your County in a Generall Assembly to be 
holden att the citty of S^ Marye's the day of at 

which time of Proclamation aforesaid the said freemen so re- 
quired to appeare or the major part of such of them as shall 
then appeare shall and may and are hereby authorized and 
required to Elect and Chuse four severall& sufficient freemen 
of your County each of them having a freehold of fifty acres 
of land or a visible personall estate of forty pounds starling 
att least within your County and you shall give authority to 
each of them severally and respectively by four severall and 
respective indentures under their hands and scales to be 
Deputyes and Delegates for your County and to appear and 
serve as Deputyes and Delegates for your County att the 
said next Generall Assembly to doe and consent to those 
things which then by the favour of God shall there happen 
to be ordained by the Lord Proprietary by the advice and 
consent of the great Councell of this Province concerning 
such occasions and affairs as shall relate to the government 
state & defence of this Province but wee will not in any case 
that you or any other sherifTe in our said Province be elected 
which said indentures shall be between you the Sheriffe of 
the one part and the said freemen Electing on the other part 
and shall beare date the same day upon which the said elec- 
tion shall be made and shall mention the time and place of 
such election and the persons soe elected and shall be signed 
and sealed each part of them as well by you the sheriffe as 



APPENDICES. 



251 



by the said freemen by whom the said election shall be made 
and that upon such election you the Sheriffe shall soe soon 
as conveniently may be certifie and transmitt to the Chan- 
cellor of this Province for the time being one part of the said 
severall and respective Indentures close sealed up under 
your hand & scale and directed to the Lord Proprietary of 
this Province and alsoe to the said Chancellor & the other 
part of the said Indentures you are to keepe for your Justi- 
fication vvittness our selfe at our Citty of St. Marye's &ca'. 



Anne by the grace of God of England Scotland France 
and Ireland Queen Defender of the faith &c. To the Sheriff 
of A County Greeting These are to authorize and em- 
power you immediately upon receipt hereof to call together 
four or more Commissioners of your County with the Clerk 
who are hereby required to sitt as a Court and during the 
sitting by virtue of your office to make or cause to be made 
publicq proclamation thereby giving notice to all the free- 
men of your said County who have within your said County 
a freehold of fifty acres of land or a visible estate of forty 
pounds sterl. at the least requiring them to appear at the 
next County Court to be holden for your County at a cer- 
tain day within a reasonable time after such proclamation 
made for electing and choosing of Deputys and Delegates 
to serve for your County in a Generall Assembly to be 
holden at the port of Annapolis the day of at 

which time of proclamation aforesaid the said freemen so 
required to appear or the major part of such of them as shall 
then appear shall and may and are hereby authorized and 
required to elect and choose four severall and sufhcient free- 
men of your County each of them having a freehold of fifty 
acres of land or visible estate of forty pound sterl. at the 
least within your County and you shall give to each of them 

^Act of 1678, Marylaiid Archives, 3 Proceedings and Acts of Assembly, 60. The 
writ given in the act of 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 76, is similar, mutatis t?iutandis. 



2r2 APPENDICES. 

severally and respectively by four severall and respective 
Indentures under their hands and seals to be Deputys and 
Delegates for your County at the said next Generall As- 
sembly to do and consent to those things which then by the 
favour of God shall happen to be ordained by the advice 
and consent of the great Councill of this province concern- 
ing such occasions and affaires as shall relate to the Gov- 
ernment State and defence of this province But we will 
not in any case that you or any other sheriff in our said 
province be elected. Which said Indentures shall be be- 
tween you the said sheriff of the one part and the said 
freemen electing of the other part and shall bear date the 
same day upon which the said election shall be made and 
that upon such election you the said Sheriff shall so soon as 
conveniendy may be certify and transmitt to the Chancelour 
of this province for the time being one part of the said 
severall and respective Indentures close sealed up under 
your hand and scale and directed to the Governour of this 
province and also to the Chancellour and the other part of 
the said Indentures you are to keep for your justification. 
Witness our trusty and well beloved John Seymour Esq. 
our Capt and Chief Governour of this our province at, 
Annapolis &c.^ 



George by the grace of God of Great Brittain, France and 
Ireland King Defender of the faith &c, &c. To the sher'f 
of County Greeting. These are to command authorize 

and empower you imediately upon receipt hereof to call 
together three or more Justices of your County whereof one 
to be of the Quorum with the Clerk of the County Court 
who are hereby required to sit as a Court and dureing their 
sitting by vertue of your office to make or cause to be made 
Publick Proclamation thereby giveing notice to all the free- 

I4 Anne, chap. 35; Baskett ed., 1723, 121. 



APPENDICES. 



253 



men of your said County who have within the said County a 
freehold of fifty acres of land who shall be residents and have 
a vissiable Estate of forty pounds sterling at the least therein 
requireing them to appear at your County Court house at a 
certaine time not less than ten days after such proclamation 
made for electing and chooseing dep^ys and delegates to 
serve for your said County in a Generall Assembly to be 
holden at the day of to which time you shall adjourn your 
said Court and dureing the Courts sitting the said freemen 
so required to appear or the major part of such of them as 
- shall then appear shall and may and are hereby authorized 
and required to elect and choose four severall and sufificient 
freemen of your County each of them having a freehold 'of 
fifty acres of Land or who shall be a resident • and have a 
vissiable estate of forty pounds sterling at the least within 
your County whether the partys so elected be present or 
absent, the said election to be made in such manner and 
forme as y^ laws of England and this province doe di- 
rect and provide and you are to insert the names of the 
said persons elected in certain Indentures to be then made 
between you the said Sheriff and the Electors (that is to 
say) two Indentures for each Delegate each Indenture have- 
ing thereto your hand and scale and the hands and scales of 
the severall Electors by them subscribed that the said Dep^s 
and delegates for themselves and the County afd may have 
severally full and sufift power to do and consent to those 
things which then and there by the favour of God shall 
happen to be ordained by the advice and consent of the 
Great Councill of this Province concerning such occasion 
and affairs as shall relate to the Government state and de- 
fence thereof. But we will not in anywise that you or any 
other Sherr' in our said Province be elected and that upon 
election you the said sherr' so soon as conveniently may be 
give notice to the parties elected if absent and certifie and 



2r.4 APPENDICES. 

transmit to the Chancellor of this province for the time being 
one of the two severall and respective Indentures affixed to 
these presents close sealed up and Directed to the Chancellor 
of this province for the time being and the other part of the 
said Indentures you are to keep for your Justification WIT- 
NESS &c.' 

VIRGINI/V. 

No particular form is prescribed for the writs, but each 
sherifif or his deputy is required to endorse his return upon 
the back in the following form : 

"By vertue of this writt I have caused to be legally sum- 
moned the freeholders of my county to meet this day being 
the day of at the court house of this county being the 
usuall place for election of burgesses and have given them in 
charge to make election of two of the most able and discreet 
persons of the said county for theire burgesses, who accord- 
ingly have elected and chosen A B and C D burgesses for the 
said county for the next generall assembly to be held at 
the day of "^ 

A later act required the return to be made as follows : 

Upon the writ are to be endorsed the words : 

"The execution of this writ appears in a certain schedule 
hereto annexed." 

The schedule is to be in the following form, mutatis mu- 
tandis, viz. : 

"By virtue of this writ to me directed, in my full county 
held at the court house of my said county, upon the day 
of in the year of the reign of by the grace of 

God of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Queen: de- 
fender of the faith &c., by the assent of my said county I 

' 8 Geo. I, chap. 42. See Appendix B, post, 
^ II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening 172. 



APPENDICES. 255 

have caused to be chosen (two Burgesses) of my said 
county, to wit, A B and C D, to act and do as in the said 
writ is directed and required." 

For a town or for the college of William and Mary, the 
return is to be made in this form : 

"By virtue of this writ, to me directed, I did make lawful 
publication thereof; and afterwards, to wit, upon the day of 
in the year of the reign of by the grace of 

God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Queen, de- 
fender of the faith (at the said town of ) or (at the said 
college) by the assent of the (freeholders) or (President, 
and Masters or Professors) thereof, I have caused to be 
chosen one Burgess for the said (town) or (College) to wit 
AB of to act and do as in the said writ is directed and 
required." ^ 

II. OATHS. 

§ I . Freemen and Electors. 

NEW PLYMOUTH. 
Oat)i of a Freeman? 
You shall be truly loyall to [our Sov. Lord King Charles 
his heirs and successors (the State and Governt of England 
as it now stands — ]'^ You shall not speake or doe, devise or 
advise any thing or things act or acts directly or indirectly 
by land or water, that doth shall or may tend to the de- 
struccon or over throw of this prnt plantacons Colonies or 
Corporacon of New Plymouth, Neither shall you suffer the 
same to be spoken or done but shall hinder oppose & dis- 
cover the same to the Govr & assistants of the said Colony 

^4 Anne, chap. 2, § 7, 3 Hening, 236. 

^11 Plymouth Colonial Recoj'ds, 8; Brigham, 38. A similar oath is given in li 
Plymouth Colonial Records, 80. 

■""The passage in brackets is erased in the original document. 



2c6 APPENDICES. 

for the time being or some one of them. You shall faithfully 
submit unto such good & wholsome laws & ordinances as 
either are or shall be made for the ordering & govrnm^ of 
the same, and shall endeavor to advance the growth & good 
of the severall plantations w*in the limit of this corporacon 
by all due meanes & courses. All w^h you promise & sweare 
by the name of the great God of heaven & earth simply truly 
& faithfully to pforme as you hope for help fro God who is 
the God of truth & punisher of falsehood. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 
Oath of Fidelity} 

I A B being by God's providence an Inhabitant within the 
jurisdiction of this Commonwealth do freely and sincerely 
acknowledge my self to be subject to the Government 
thereof And do here swear by the great and dreadfull name 
of the Ever living God, that I will be true and faithfull to the 
same, and will accordingly yeild assistance thereunto, with 
my person and estate as in equity I am bound : And will also 
truely endeavour to Maintain and preserve all the Liberties 
and Priviledges thereof, submitting my self unto the whole- 
som Laws made and established by the same. 

And farther that I will not plot or practice any evill 
against it or consent to any that shall so do but will timely 
discover and reveal the same to lawfull Authority now here 
established, for the speedy preventing thereof. So help me 
God in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Oath of a Freeman? 
I, A B being by God's Providence an Inhabitant within 
the jurisdiction of the commonwealth and now to be made 
free ; doe here freely acknowledg my self to be subject to 

'^ La-ivs, ed. 1660, 84. 

''^ Laivs, ed. 1660, 84; i Massachusetts Colonial Records, 117. 



APPENDICES. 257 

the Government thereof : and therefore do hear Swear by the 
great and dreadfull Name of the Everhving God, that I will 
be true and faithfull to the same, and will accordingly yeild 
assistance and support thereunto, with my person and estate 
as in equity I am bound, and will also truely endeavour to 
maintain and preserve all the Liberties and Priviledges 
thereof submitting my self unto the wholesome Laws made 
and established by the same. And farther, that I will not 
plot or practice any evill against it or consent that any shall 
so do ; but will timely discover and reveal the same to law- 
full authority now here established for the speedy prevention 
thereof. 

Moreover I do solemnly bind my self in the sight of God, 
that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any 
such matter of this State, wherein Free-men are to deal ; I 
will give my vote and suffrage as I shall in mine own con- 
science judg best to conduce and tend to the publick weal 
of the Body without respect of persons or favour of any man. 
So help me God &c 

RHODE ISLAND. 

During the earlier years of Rhode Island, the newly 
chosen officers " engaged " themselves by taking an oath. 
The freemen then took the following " Reciprocal Engage- 
ment" which falls perhaps under the category of an oath of 
allegiance or of fidelity rather than of an elector : 

"We the Lihabitants of the Province of Providence Plan- 
tations being here orderly met, and having by free vote 
chosen you to public office and officers for the due adminis- 
tration of justice and the execution thereof throughout the 
whole Colonic do hereby engage ourselves to the utmost of 
our power to support an'd uphold yon in your faithfull per- 
formance thereof.'" 

^ I Rhode Island Colonial Records, 1 50. 



2q8 APPENDICES. 

Oath to be taken by elector's (iddj).^ 
You AB, sollemly and sincearly engage true and faithfull 
aleagiance vnto his Majesteye Charles the Second, King of 
England, his heirs and successors, to beare and due obedi- 
ance vnto the lawes established, from time to time in this 
jurisdiction to yeald vnto the utmost of your power, accord- 
ing to the previlidge by his said Majesty granted, in religious 
and civill concearnments to this collony in the charter; 
which said engagment you make under the perrill and 
penalty of perjury. 

Oat/i reqinred on admission as freemen or at the time of voting.' 
You AB do solemnly swear (or affirm) That you have 
not, nor will not receive any money or other reward, nor any 
promise of Money or any other thing, by which you may 
expect any money or future reward, at the Election of any 
ofiEicer to be chosen in this colony ; and that you will not 
bargain or contract with any person, directly or indirectly, 
contrary to the true meaning of this Oath (or affirmation) ; 
but that you will use your freedom for the Good of the 
Government only, without any other Motive. And this 
Declaration you make without any Evasion, Equivocation or 
Mental Reservation whatsoever. 

Oath required of those suspected of receiving or making 
fraudulent conveyances in order to multiply or create votes :^ 

You, AB, do solemnly swear that you are really and truly 
possessed in your own Right of the estate of which a Con- 
veyance is made you by CD according to the Tenor of the 
said Conve)/ance ; and that you now hold and improve the 
same to your Use, Benefit and Behoof, and that you have 
not given any promise or assurance of any nature or kind 

1 2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 112. ^ 20 Geo. II, Franklin ed., 1752, 13. 
3 Hall's Code, 1767, Title Electioits, 78. 



APPENDICES. 



259 



whatsoever, that you will reconvey said estate to the said CD 
or any Person in his Behalt And this Declaration you 
make without any Evasion, Equivocation, or Mental Reserva- 
tion whatsoever. 

NEW HAVEN. 
Oat J I of a Freemaii^ (^i6jg.^ 
Yow shall neither plott, practise nor consent to any evill 
or hurt against this Jurisdiction, or any pte of it, or against 
the civill gouernment here established. And if you shall 
know any pson, or psons w^h intend, plott or conspire any 
thing w^h tends to the hurt or prejudice of the same, yow 
shall timely discouer the same to lawfull authority here 
established, and yow shall assist and bee helpfull in all the 
affaires of the Jurisdiction, and by all meanes shall promove 
the publique wellfare of the same, according to yo"^ place, 
ability, and opptunity, yow shall give due honno^ to the 
lawfull magistrats, and shall be obedient and subject to all 
the wholesome lawes and orderes, allready made, or w^h 
shall be hereafter made, by lawfull authority afforesaid. 
And that both in yo^ p^on and estate ; ' and when yow shall 
be duely called to give yo'^ vote or suffrage in any election 
or touching any other matter which concerneth this com- 
mon wealth yow shall give it as in yo"^ conscience yow shall 
judg may conduce to the best good of the same. 

Oath of fidelity administered to all freemen?' 
I A B being by the providence of God an inhabitant 
within Newhaven jurisdictio, doe acknowledge myselfe to be 
subject to the governm^ thereof, and doe sweare be the great 
and dreadfull name of the everliving God, to be true and 
faithfuU vnto the same, and doe submitt both my person and 
my whole estate therevnto according to all the wholsome 

' I Nezu Haven Colonial Records, 19. '^ Ibid., 137. 



26o APPENDICES. 

lawes and orders thatt for present are or hereafter shall be 
there made and established by lawful authority and thatt I 
will neither plott nor practise any evill agst the same, nor 
consent to any thatt should so doe, butt will timely discover 
the same to lawfull authority here established, and thatt I 
will as I am in duety bounde, maintaine the hono^^ of the 
same and off the lawfull magistrates thereoff, promoting the 
publique good of the same whilest I shall eontinue an in- 
habitant there. And whensoever I shall be duely called as 
a freeburgesse according to the fundamentall order and 
agreemt for governmt in this jurisdictio to give my vote or 
suffrage touching any matter which concerneth this Como- 
wealth, I will give itt as in my conscience I shall judge may 
conduce to the best good of the same w^hout respect of per- 
sons, so help me God &c.^ 

CONNECTICUT. 
The oath of a Hartford freeman was almost precisely like 
that required in New Haven. "^ 

After 1703 the following oath was prescribed:^ 
You, A B, being by the providence of God an inhabi- 
tant within this her majesties Colony of Connecticut, and 
now to be made free of the same, DO swear by the Ever 
living God, that you will be true and faithful to her Majesty 
Queen Anne, (and to her lawful Successors,) and to the 
Government of Her Majesties said Colony as Established by 
Charter. And whensoever you shall give your Vote or 
Suffrage touching any matter which concerns this colony, 
being called thereunto, you will give it, as in your conscience 

'The London Edition of the laws (1656) contains an oath made up of 
sentences taken from each of the preceding oaths (2 New Haven Colonial 
Records, 616). 

■^ See I Comiecticut Colonial Reco7'ds, 63. Laws, ed. 1653, Title Oaths, 53. 

^Session Laws, ed. 1754, 45. 



APPENDICES. 261 

you shall judge may conduce to the best good of the same 
without respect of persons, or Favor of any Man. So HELP 
YOU God. 

NEW YORK. 

Ge7icral Oath to be taken by every voter, if required} 
You shall swear that you are a freeholder of the County 
of and have improved Land or Tenement to the 

Value of forty pounds, lying at within the said 

county of Freehold : And that you have not been 

before Polled at this Election, nor have you procured this 
freehold to give your Voice in this election. So HELP YOU 
God.' 

In New York city elections one of the following oaths 
must be taken by every voter, according to his status, if re- 
quired by a candidate or an officer:'' 

Freeholder' s Oath. 
You shall swear, or affirm, that you are a Freeholder in 
the Ward in which you now offer to vote., and have Lands or 
Tenements to the Value of Forty Pounds lying in the said 
Ward; that you do not hold the same in Trust for any Body 
Politic or Corporate, or for any pious or religious Use what- 
soever, and that you have possessed the same for one Month 
next before the day of this Election (except he has his 
Freehold by Descent or devise), and that you have not been 
before polled at this Election nor have you procured this 
Freehold under any obligation or Promise to reconvey the 
same to the Seller after this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. 

^ II Will, in, chap. 74, § 14, Van Schaack's Latus, 28. 

^ Part of this oath is taken from the English statute of 7 and 8 Will. Ill, chap. 

25- 

^11 Geo. Ill, chap. 1492, Van Schaack's Laws, 620. 



262 APPENDICES. 

Freeman' s Oath. 
You do swear or affirm that you are a Freeman of the 
City of New York, and have been so for three months now 
last past, and have actually resided in the Ward in which you 
now offer to vote, one Month next before the Day of this 
election, and that you have not been before polled at this 
Election. So HELP YOU GOD. 

NEW JERSEY. 
Oath to be taken by electors.'' 
I A B do in the presence of God, Declare and Swear, That 
I am and have been a freeholder and Resident in this County, 
City or Town, One whole Year, arid that the Estate for which 
I claim to give my Votes in this Election, is my proper 
estate and that it is not conveyed to me in Trust, or on Con- 
dition that I shall give my vote in this Election for any 
person. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

If required by any inspector, an elector was bound to de- 
clare upon his solemn affirmation,^ " That he is Twenty-one 
Years of age and a Freeholder for the County of and 

has fifty acres of land or more, well seated and twelve Acres 
thereof or more cleared ; Or, that he is otherways worth 
Fifty Pounds, Money of this Province, clear Estate, and hath 
been resident therein for the Space of two years and that 
he has not before been polled at that Election.", 

When the system of regularly elected inspectors came into 
effect, an oath or affirmation was necessary unless the quali- 
fication of a voter was generally known, " or some one or 
more of the inspectors shall or will openly declare as to the 

^ 12 Geo. I, chap. 40, Nevill's Laws, 142. 
^4 Anne, chap. 129, Franklin ed., 1742, 67. 



APPENDICES. 



263 



rest that they know such elector to be qualified as afore- 
said."^ ' 

MARYLAND. 
All Papists or persons suspected of being such must take 
the following oaths before being permitted to vote.^ . 

Allegiance. I A B do sinccrely promise and swear that I 

will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King 
George. So HELP me God. 

Abhorrence. I A B do swcar, That I from my Heart ab- 

hor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical, that Damn- 
able Doctrine and Position That Princes excommunicated 
or deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of 
Rome may be deposed and murthered by their subjects or 
any other whatsoever. And I declare That no foreign Prince 
Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have 
Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preeminence, or authority, 
Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within the Kingdom of Great 
Britain or any of the Dominions thereunto belonging. So 
HELP ME God. 

Abjuration. I A B do truly and sincerely acknowledge, 

profess, testify and declare in my conscience before God 
and the world, That our Sovereign Lord King George is law- 
fully and rightfully King of the Realm of Great Britain and 
all other the Dominions and countries thereunto belonging. 
And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe 
in my conscience that the person pretended to be the Prince 
of Wales, during the hfe time of the late King James, and 
since his decease pretending to be and taking upon himself 
the Stile and Title of King of England by the name of James 
the Third, or of Scotland by the Name of James the Eighth, 
or the Stile and Title of King of Great Britain hath not any 

^ 13 Geo. I, chap. 284, Franklin ed., 1742, 346. 

^ 3 Charles Lord B., chap, i; i Chas. Lord B., chap. 5, Bacon's Lazus. 



264 APPENDICES. 

Right or Title whatsoever to the Crown of the Realm of 
Great Britain or any other the Dominions thereto belong- 
ing. And I do renounce refuse and abjure any Allegiance 
or Obedience to him. And I do swear that I will bear Faith 
and True allegiance to his Majesty King George and him 
will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitrous 
Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made 
against his Person Crown or Dignity, and I will do my 
utmost Endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty 
and his successors all Treasons and traitrous Conspiracies 
which I shall know to be against him or any of them. And 
I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my Power to sup- 
port maintain and defend the Succession of the Crown against 
him the said James, and all other Persons whatsoever, 
which Succession by an act entitled "An act for the further 
Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and 
Liberties of the Subject" is and stands limited to the Prin- 
cess Sophia, Electress and .Dutchess Dovv^ager of Hanover 
and the Lleirs of her body being Protestants. And these 
things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, 
according to these express words by me spoken and accord- 
ing to the plain and common Sense and understanding of the 
same Words, vdthout any Equivocation, mental Evasion or 
secret Reservation whatsoever. And I do make this Recog- 
nition, Acknowledgment, Abjuration, Renunciation and 
Promise, heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of 
a Christian. So HELP ME GOD. 

Test. I A B do declare. That I do believe there is 

not any Trans-substantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine at or after 
the Consecration thereof hy any person whatsoever. 



APPENDICES. 265 

VIRGINIA. 

Oath to be taken by voters upon request of any freeholder} 

You shall swear that you are bona fide a freeholder in 
this county of or towne of to the best of y«." 

knowledge. 

In case the elector were a Quaker, the following declara- 
tion must be first made : 

I, A B, do declare in the presence of Almighty God, the 
witness of the truth of what I say. 

After 1705, this oath was required of all voters :'' 

You shall swear that you are a freeholder of the county 
of and that you have not been before polled at this 

election. 

Thirty-one years later the following oath must be taken if 
required:" 

You shall swear, That you are a freeholder in the county 
of and have at least one hundred acres of freehold 

lands unseated, lying and being in the parish of in 

the county of in your . sole possession or in the 

possession of your tenant or tenants for years ; and that the 
greatest part of the said land doth lie in the county of 
OR, that you are a freeholder and sole owner of twenty five 
acres of land with a house and plantation upon it, lying and 
being in the county of in your sole possession, or in 

the possession of your tenant or tenants for years ; OR, that 
you are a freeholder and sole owner of a house and lot, or a 
house and part of a lot, in your possession, or in the posses- 
sion of your tenant or tenants lying and being in the city 
and town of , and that such freehold estate hath not 

been made or granted to you fraudulently on purpose to 

1 II Will. Ill, chap. 2, 3 Hening 172. 
'4 Anne, chap. 2, 3 Hening 336. 
♦ ^ ic Geo. II, chap. 2, § vii, 4 Hening 475. 



256 APPENDICES. 

qualify you to give your vote ; and that you have not been 
polled before at this election.^ 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Locke's Constitution required all persons seventeen years 
of age or over to take the following oath before they could 
have any rights in the province. In this respect it falls under 
the head of a voter's oath, though of course the elector must 
be a freeman of the proper age." 

I A B do promise to bear faith and true allegiance to our 
sovereign Lord King Charles the Second, his heirs and suc- 
cessors, and will be true and faithful to the Palatine and Lords 
Proprietors of Carolina, their heirs and successors, and with 
my utmost power will defend them and maintain the govern- 
ment,according to this establishment in these fundamental 
constitutions. 

OatJi to be taken upon challenge by any person present^ 
You shall swear, That you have been possessed of a 
Freehold, of Fifty acres of Land for Three Months past in 
your own Right, in the County of and have been Six 

Months an inhabitant of this Province ; and that you have 
not given in your vote before in this Election. So HELP YOU 
God. 

In 1760 the following oath was substituted for the above:* 
You shall sv/ear that you have been Six Months an In- 
habitant of this Province, and that you have been possessed, 
of a freehold of Fifty acres of Land for three months past, in 

1 A portion of this oath is taken from the English statute of 10 Anne, chap. 23. 
For additional oaths see 15 Geo. II, chap. 26, § iii, 5 Hening 204; 3 Geo. HI, 
chap, r, § xiii, 7 Hening 519. 

'^Art. 117, 2 N'orth Carolina Colottial Records, 205. 

^17 Geo. II., chap, i, Davis ed., 1752, 177. 

^33 Geo. II., chap, i, Davis ed., 1773, 247. 



APPENDICES. 



267 



your own Right in the County of , and that such land 

hath not been granted you fraudulently, on Purpose to 
qualify you to give your Vote ; and that the place of your 
abode is in the County of and that you have not voted 

in this election. So HELP YOU GOD.' 

In Vestry elections the following oath was prescribed:'^ 
You shall swear (or affirm) that you are in actual Posses- 
sion of a Freehold of Fifty Acres of Land in your own 
Right (or the Right of some other Person) ; or a Lot in the 
Town of saved according to Law, in the Parish of 

and that you have not given your Vote before in 
this Election. So HELP YOU GOD. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 
Oaths covering the qualifications were administered to 
every voter.'^ 

GEORGIA. 
Oath to be administered at the reqti^st of one of the candidates 
or of any two persons qualified to vote.^ 
I AB, do swear that I am legally possessed in my own 
Right of a freehold Estate of fifty acres of Land in the 
Township or District of and that such Estate is legally 

or bona fide in my own right and not made over or granted 
to me purposely or fraudulently to intitle me to vote at this 
Election. 

^ The latter part of this oath is similar to that prescribed in England by statute 
of 10 Anne, chap. 23. 

^5 Geo. Ill, chap. 2, Davis, ed., 1773, 305. 

•^ Act 1704, no. 227, 2 Cooper, 249; Act 1716, no. 365, 2 Cooper, 683. 

•* Act 1 761. 



268 APPENDICES. 

§ 2. Election Officers. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

''Oath to be administered to those that sort and mmiber the 

votes." ^ 
Whereas yow ABC are appointed and betrusted ffor the 
opening the Proxies sent in by the Freemen, and receiving 
sorting and numbering the Votes for the choice of Gou'no"" 
Deputy Gou'no"^ , Assistants and other pubhc Officers of this 
Jurisdiction to be Chosen on the ellection Day yow doe now 
sweare by the Name of Almighty God that yow will deale 
truely and uprightly therein as also that you will not either 
directly or indirectly discouer either persons or number of 
Votes until the Election is ended. So help you God. 

CONNECTICUT. 

At the election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of 
Governor Winthrop, in 1707, the tellers chosen to count the 
votes of the legislature took the following oath:- 

You, AB, CD &c being appointed to sort the votes now 
to be given in for the choice of a Governour doe swear that 
you will faithfully do the same and declare who is chosen by 
the major part of this assembly. So help you God. 

, ' Orders at Court of Feb'y 4th, 1679-80; 5 Massachusetts Colonial Records, 262. 
^ 5 Connecticut Colonial Records, 38. 



■ APPENDIX B. 

UNPUBLISHED STATUTES RELATING TO ELECTIONS. 
PENNSYLVANIA. 

LAWS 1700, CHAPTER 28.^ 

An Act to Ascertain the Nnniker of Members of Assembly 
And to Regulate the Elections. 
For the prevention of all dispute and uncertainty for the 
future, what persons shall be accounted freemen of this 
Province and Territories and have right of electing or being 
elected members of Assemibly. Be it Enacted by the Pro- 
prietary and Governor and by and with the advice and con- 
sent of the freemen of this Province and Territories in Gen- 
eral Assembly met and by the authority of the same, That 
there shall be four persons elected yearly in said respective 
county of this Province and Territories to serve as members' 
of Assemibly. And that no inhabitant of this Province and 
Territories shall have the right of electing or being elected 
as aforesaid unless he or they be natural or native born sub- 
ject or subjects of England or be naturalized in England or 
in this Province and Territories and unless said person or 
persons as aforesaid be of the age of twenty-one years or 
upward and be a free-holder or free-holders of this Province 

^ This statute was incorporated by reference in Penn's Charter of Privileges, 
and confirmed by that instrument as establishing the qualifications of electors. 
(See I Proud, History of Pen^isylvania, 444, for a copy of the charter.) The 
present act is'referred to by title in most of the editions of the Pennsylvania co- 
lonial statutes. The copy now published was obtained from the office of the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where the original is of record. 



2^0 APPENDICES. 

or Territories and have fifty acres of land or more well 
seated and twelve acres thereof or more cleared and im- 
proved or be otherwise worth fifty pounds lawful money of 
this Government, clear estate and have been resident therein 
for the space of two years before said election. And to the 
end that elections on which the good of the Government so 
much depends may not be corruptly managed or obtained. 
It is Enacted by the authority aforesaid that all elections 
of the said Representatives shall be free and voluntary and 
that the elector that shall receive any reward or gift for his 
vote shall forfeit his right of electing for that year and be 
fined in the sum of five pounds to the use of the Proprietary 
and Governor. And that all and every person and persons 
that shall give, offer or promise any reward to be elected or 
that shall offer to serve for nothing or less allowance than 
the law prescribes shall be fined in the like sum of five 
pounds for the use aforesaid and be incapable of serving for 
that year and the Representatives so chosen as above 
directed shall yield their attendance accordingly and being 
in Assembly shall be the sole judges of the regularity or 
irregularity of the elections of the respective members 
according to this Act. And if any person or persons so 
chosen to serve as aforesaid shall be wilfully absent from the 
service he or they are elected unto, every such person or 
persons shall be fined in the sum of twenty pounds to the 
use aforesaid unless his or their excuse shall be allowed by 
the Assembly. And in case any person or persons so 
chosen as aforesaid shall die in the meantime or" be rendered 
incapable, then and in such cases it shall be lawful for the 
Proprietary and Governor and his successors and his or their 
Lieutenant and Governor for the time being after knowledge 
thereof to issue his or their writ or writs to the Sheriffs of the 
respective counties for which the said person or persons 
were chosen immediately \o summon the freemen of the same 



APPENDICES. 



271 



to elect another member or members in the room and stead 
of such absent or deceased or incapable person or persons 
and to return the same duly executed. And for the preven- 
tion of all such exceptions or complaints for want of due 
notice of elections, Be it Enacted by the authority aforesaid 
that publication of all and every writ or writs for elections as 
aforesaid shall be made by the several Sheriffs of this Prov- 
ince and Territories in their respective counties or by some 
others by them severally appointed to read the same in the 
capital town or most public place within their respective 
Bailiwicks betw'een the hours of ten in the morning and two 
in the afternoon with an advertisement posted upon some 
tree or house in the way of leading from every hundred or 
precinct to the said capital towns or places respectively and 
also upon the Courthouses and public fixed meeting houses 
for Religious worship in the said respective counties with all 
convenient speed after he receives the writ and also give 
notice thereof to ever}^ Constable of the several hundreds 
and townships which Constables are required to promulgate 
the same under penalty of five pounds each for each ofTence. 
And in case any sheriff shall be deficient therein he shall be 
fined in the sum of fifty pounds for each offence and in case 
any Sheriff shall misbehave himself in the management of the 
aforesaid elections he shall be punished accordingly at the 
discretion of the Governor and Council for the time being. 
And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid that 
every member chosen or to be chosen by the freemen as 
aforesaid t *serve in the Assembly shall be allowed the sum 
of six shillings by the day and the Speaker ten shillings per 
day during his or their attendance on the service thereof 
and that every member t)f Assembly shall be allowed toward 
his travelling charges after the rate of three pence for each 
mile both going to and coming from the place where the 
Assembly is or shall be held. And be it further Enacted by 



2^2 APPENDICES. 

the authority aforesaid that all Laws hereafter to be made in 
this Province and Territories shall be fairly engrossed in rolls 
of paper or parchment before the final passing thereof. 

* . * * * * _ » * 

Passed November 27, 1700. 

Recorded A. Vol. I. page 15. 
Repealed by the Queen in Counsel, February 7, 1705, 

MARYLAND. 

4 ANNE, CHAPTER 35.^ 

An Act directing the Manner of Electing and summoning 
Delegates and Representatives to serve in succeeding As- 
semblys. 

FORA.SMUCH as the chiefest and only foundation and sup- 
port of any Kingdom State or Commonwealth is the pro- 
viding establishing and enacting good and wholesome lav/s 
for the good rule and government thereof and also upon any 
necessary and emergent occasion to raise and levy money 
for the defraying the charges of the said Government and 
defence thereof neither of which according to the Constitu- 
tion of this province can be made ordained established or 
raised but by and with the consent of the freemen of this 
province by their severall delegates and representatives by 
them freely nominated chosen and elected to serve for their 
severall citys and countys in a Generall Assembly. And 
forasmuch as the safest and best rule for this province to 

^ Bacon refers to this act by title and declares it to be obsolete. We have 
thought it unnecessary to publish the act of 4 Will, and Mary, chap. 76, be- 
cause on comparison we find that it is similar to the law passed in the third year 
of Charles Lord Baltimore (1678), mutatis mutandis. The latter statute was 
reprinted a few years ago in the Maryland State Archives (3 Proceedings and 
Acts of Assembly, 60-63), and is therefore easy of access. 



APPENDICES. 



273 



follow in electing such Delegates and Representatives is the 
presidents of the proceeding in parliament in England as 
near as the Constitution of this province will admit. The 
Governour Councill and Delegates of this present Generall 
Assembly do humbly pray that it may be enacted and Be 
IT ENACTED by the Queens most excellent Majesty by and 
with the advice and consent of her Majestys Governour 
councill and Assembly of this province and the authority of 
the same that for the future when and as often as his excel- 
lency the Governour of this province for the time being 
shall be upon any accident and urgent affair of this province 
think fitt to call and convene an Assembly and to send writts 
for election of Burgesses and Delegates to serve in such 
Assembl}' the form of the said writt shall be as followeth. 

(^Here follows the foi^m of writ as given in Appendix A 
of the present work. ) 

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that 
two citizens to serve in the said Assembly for the city of 
St. Marys shall be nominated elected chosen and appointed 
by the major Recorder Aldemen and comon councill as 
heretofore hath been usual. 

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that 
the aforesaid four Delegates to be elected in the respective 
countys within this province and the two citizens of the city 
of St. Marys be and are hereby bound and obliged to attend 
the time and place of the meeting of such Assembly without 
any further writt or sumons to bee to them sent under the 
penalty of such fines as shall be by the house of Assembly 
imposed upon them unless upon sufficient excuse to be 
admitted by the said house of Assembly their absence be 
excused withall any law statute usage or custom to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

And be it also further enacted by the authority aforesaid 
that any sheriff that shall refuse and neglect to make return 



2-74 APPENDICES. 

of the Delegates so elected by Indenture as aforesaid before 
the day of sitting of such Assembly or that shall make any 
undue or illegall returns of such elections shall for every 
fault be fined two hundred pounds ster'l the one half to 
her Majesty her heirs and successors for the support of 
Government and the other half to the Informer or him or 
them that shall sue for the same to be recovered in any 
Court of record in this province wherein no essoyn protec- 
tion or wager of Law to bee allowed. 

Provided nevertheless that this act or anything herein 
contained shall not extend to be construed to exclude any 
County or Countys city or citys Burrough or Burroughs 
hereafter by her Majesty her heirs or successors to be 
erected and made within this province from the liberty of 
such elections of Delegates and Representatives as is before 
expressed But that such writt as aforesaid shall upon calling 
every Generall Assembly for this province for the future 
issue to the sheriff of every such county when the same shall 
be erected and made into a county as aforesaid and to the 
major Recorder and Aldermen of every such city or Bur- 
rough comanding such sheriff or major recorder and alder- 
men to cause four freemen of the said County and two free- 
men of the said city or Burrough qualifyed as in the said 
writt is expressed to serve as Delegates and Representatives 
of the said county city or Burrough in the Generall Assem- 
bly then next ensuing which said four Delegates for every 
such county and two for the city and Burrough shall from 
henceforth be reputed and esteemed to be members of the 
house of the Generall Assembly of this province anything in 
this Act to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding. 

Provided also that no ordinary Keeper within this prov- 
ince during the time of his keeping ordinary shall be elected 
chosen or serve as a Deputy or Representative in the said 



APPEXDICES. 



275 



Generall Assembly so to be hereafter called convened and 
appointed as aforesaid. 

Sept. 23rd, 1704 Sept. 26* 1704 

Read and assented to by Read and assented to by 

the house of Delegates her Majestys Hon^le Councill 

W Saylard Clk H. D. W Bladen Clk Councill 

Maryland October 3d 1704 
On the behalf of her Maty i will this be a Law 
' — ' — > Jo : Seymour. 

f Seal ^ ■' 

1 °* 
( Maryland 

I, J Frank Ford, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Mary- 
land do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and true 
Copy of an Act of the Provinciall Assembly of Maryland as 
taken from Liber L. L. No 3 Folios 90 &c. one of the Record 
Books of this Ofhce. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my 
' ""^ ; ^ hand as Clerk and affixed the seal of the 

f Seal of the \ 

-^ Court of Appeals ^ said Court of Appeals this lOth day of 

i of Maryland. J t .o^^ 

*-, ^ / June 1892.. 

[Signed] J. FRANK FORD 

Clerk Court of Appeals of Maryland. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

10 GEORGE I, CHAPTER 2} 

A71 Act intituled an additional Act relating to biennial and 
other Assemblies and regulating Elections and divers other 
things relating to Towns. 
Whereas by the Act intituled an Act relating to Biennial 

^The act of 1723 is referred to by title in the several editions of the North 
Carolina laws as chapter 2 of the statutes passed in that year. Davis and Swann 
(ed. 1752, 67; ed. 1773, 37,) give the title of another lavt^, "an act for Regulating 
tow^ns and Elections of Burgesses," passed Nov. 6th, 1727. On account of the sup- 



2^6 APPENDICES. 

and other Assemblies and regulating Elections and Mem- 
bers. And by a late Act intituled an Act for enlarging and 
Encouragement of the town called Edenton in Chowan pre- 
cincts the inhabitants of Several Towns in this Government 
have Liberty to elect a Representative to Sit in all succeed- 
ing Assemblies but there being no particular directions how. 
such Representative or the votes shall be qualified for the 
better regulating thereof. 

Be it Enacted by his Excellency the Palatin, &c. 

And it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same 
that no person or persons shall be admitted Representative 
or Burgess for any town in this government unless he be a 
Freeholder or owner of a saved lott in the said town and 
hath been so for eighteen months preceeding the said elec- 
tion and doth constantly maintain and keep an habitable 
house thereon. 

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that 
no person or persons whatsoever shall be admitted to elect 
or vote for a representative or burgess for any town in this 
Government, unless he be an owner of a saved lott in the 
said town and doth constantly keep an house or houses in 
repair thereon not lett or tenanted to and by a person 
capable of voting in the said town, though not residing 
therein. Provided nevertheless that where any person who 
hath paid the preceeding years levy or pole tax doth rent 
and live in and on any such house or lott in the said town 
not tenanted shall have a right of voting for a Representa- 
tive or Burgess, but if the tenant by law have not a right to 

posed destruction of the original manuscript laws passed between the years 1723 
and 1743 (see footnote p. 89, ante), it has not been possible to procure a copy 
of this statute. A search among the papers of the Public Record Office in 
London has failed to bring to light a copy of the act of 1727, or of either of the 
South Carohna election laws of October 15th, 1692 (No. 78, 2 Cooper) or of 
March loth, 1696-7 (No. 152, 2 Cooper, 130) respectively, to which reference has 
several times been made in this work. 



APPENDICES. 277 

vote, then the owner thereof and not- the tenant shall have 
the vote and no other person or persons than what are 
above expressed, shall have any vote for any member or 
representative in such towns, any Law Usage or Custom to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that 
no person or persons whatsoever, not having resided within 
this Government eighteen months next preceeding any suc- 
ceeding elections shall be capable of being elected or chosen 
as a representative or member of assembly for any town or 
precinct within the Government. 

(The rcinainder of this statute relates to subjects wholly 
foreign to the topic treated in the present work. It is therefore 
omitted.) 

I, J. C. Birdsong, State Librarian, do hereby certify that 
the foregoing is a true copy of "An Act intituled an addi- 
tional Act relating to biennial and other Assemblies and 
regulating elections and divers other things relating to towns," 
passed "At a General Biennial Assembly begun and held at 
Edenton, the 4th day of November, 1723, and continued by 
several adjournments to the 23rd day of the same," the same 
being now on file in the State Library of this State. ^ 

[Signed] J. C. BiRDSONG, 

State Librarian. 

December 23rd, 1892. 

8 GEORGE II, CHAPTER 2.' 
An Act for repealing a Claitse in an Act Intituled an Act re- 
lating to Bienial and other Assemblies, zvhich empowers 
Freemen of the several precincts to ■ vote for Members of 
Assembly ; And declaring ivliat persons si tall be qualified to 

1 There is also a copy of this act in the Public Record Office in London. 

- This act is quoted by title in Davis and Swann (ed. 1752, 79; ed. 1773, 45). 
The copy now published was found in the British Public Record Office in Lon- 
don. 



2-7 3 APPENDICES. 

vote for members to sit in General Assembly; And also qnal- 

ification of Members for the fnture. 

Whereas it hath been found inconvenient for the Freemen 
of each precinct to vote for members of Assembly; And His 
Majesty by his Royal Instruction having been pleased to di- 
rect that only only the Freeholders of this Province should 
be Intituled to vote for Members of Assembly. Therefore 
be it Enacted by His Excellency Gabriel Johnston Esq'^ Gov- 
ernour, the Council and General Assembly, That no person 
hereafter shall be admitted to give his vote in any Election 
for members of Assembly for the precincts in this Province, 
unless such person has been an Inhabitant in the. precinct 
where he votes at least six months, and has bona fide a Free- 
hold in his own Right of at least fifty Acres of Land in the 
said precinct, which he shall have been possest of Three 
Months before he offers to give his vote. 

And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That here- 
after no person shall be deemed qualified or admitted to sit 
in the Assembly, unless he has been one full year an Inhab- 
itant of this Province, and is possessed in his own Right of 
at least one hundred acres of Freehold Land in the precinct 
where he is Elected or Chosen. 

And it is hereby Enacted that those parts of the two 
clauses in an Act Intituled " an Act relating to the Biennial 
and other Assemblys ; wherein the Freemen of the respect- 
ive precincts of the County of Albemarle, and the Freemen 
in each precinct, in Every other County, are Impowered to 
vote for Members to Sit in the General Assembly; as also 
that part of the clause in an Act Intituled "an Act for regu- 
lating Towns and Elections of Burgesses;" that permit per- 
sons to vote who have been resident six Months in the pre- 
cinct where they vote, are hereby declared repealed. And 
be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that if any 
dispute or Challange shall arise touching the quahfication of 



APPENDICES. 



279 



any person or persons offering his or their vote according to 
the true Intent and meaning of this Act, that then and in 
such Case, it shall and may be Lawful for the person who is 
authorized to take the Poll, to administer an Oath to such 
person or persons so off' ring his or their vote, that he or 
they are quallified pursuant to this Act ; and that the same 
Oath be administred to every candidate upon any Chal- 
lenge made of his being quallified, as is in this Act Provided, 
any Law heretofore made to the Contrary in any wise not- 
withstanding. And be it further Enacted by the Authority 
aforesaid, that from and after the ratification of this Act, 
That all Elections of Members to sit in General Assembly, 
shall be held and taken at the Court House in Every pre- 
cinct & in Case there should be no Court house in any of the 
said precincts, that then and in such case, it shall and may 
be lawful for the Lihabitants of such precinct, to meet and 
Convene at the place appointed for such Court house to be 
built; and if no place for that purpose appointed, then at 
the usual place in the said precinct to Elect as aforesaid ; 
any Law Custom or Usage to the Contrary, in any wise not- 
withstanding. 

GEORGIA. 

Act of June 9, 1761.' 

An Act 

To assertairi the manner and form of Electing Members to 

represent the Inhabitants of this Province in the Commons 

House of Assembly-^ 

^This statute is quoted by title in Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Georgia, as act 
number 73. It is said that the session iaws passed under the provincial govern- 
ment were printed annually at Charleston and Savannah, commencing in 1756. 
Copies of these are extremely rare, and we have not been able to find a trace of 
one. The celebrated Charlemagne Tower collection is wanting in this particular, 
and as a reprint of some of the Georgia colonial statutes made in 1881 does not 
contain the election law of 1761, it has been thought advisable to insert it in this 
connection. 



280 



APPENDICES. 



Preamble to- 



Enacted. 



Writs for electing 
Members of As- 
sembly to be issued 
by the Governor 
with Consent of the 
Coimcil to bear 
teste 40 days before 
the day appointed 
for meeting, and to 
be directed to the 
Provost ]\Iarshall 
who is to cause 
such Election to be 
made and return 
the names of the 
Persons elected. 



Provost Marshall 
to cause publick 
Notice to be made 
in writing of the 
Time and Place of 
Election, at least 10 
days before the day 
of Election. 



Whereas the manner and form of chusing 
Members of the Commons House of Assembly 
to represent the Inhabitants of this Province 
and the QuaHfica:tion of the Electors and those 
elected Members of the Commons House of 
Assembly has never yet been appointed, fixed 
and determined by any Laws of this Province, 
We therefore pray your most Sacred Majesty' 
that it may be Enacted — 

And be it Enacted by his Honor James 
Wright Esquire Lieutenant Governor and Com- 
mander in-Chief of this his Majesty's Province 
of Georgia by and with the advice and Consent 
of the Honerable Council and the Commons 
House of Assembly of the said Province in 
General Assembly met and by the authority of 
the Same That from and after the passing of 
this Act all Writs for the Election of Members 
of the Commons House of Assembly shall be 
issued out by the Governor or Commander in 
Chief for the time being with the Consent of 
the Council and shall bear teste forty days be- 
fore the day appointed for the Meeting of the 
said Members and shall be directed by the Pro- 
vost Marshal in the said Writs to Cause such 
Elections to be made and to return the Names 
of the Persons eleclected to be Members of the 
Commons House of Assembly and the Provost 
Marshal is hereby empowered and required to 
execute such Writ to him directed and for the 
faithful and due performance of which accord- 
ing to the true intent and meaning of this Act 
the Provost Marshal shall cause pubhck Notice 
in writing to be affixed at one or m.ore noted 



APPENDICES. 281 

place or places in such' Parish, District or 
Town or Village for which the election of a 
Member or Members by him is to be taken at 
least ten days before the day of Election of the 
time and place where such election is by him 
to be taken. AND be it FURTHER Enacted ^, 

Every free white 

by the authority aforesaid that every free white ^/"ears*ndi?at°h 

*man and no other who has attained to the age "^^^ Provfnc"e' 'e 

of Twenty One years and hath been Resident Tested' in^hl own 

in the Province Six Months and is legally of'Va"d^°in ThI 

,.,. T->-i r r r A I- Parish &c where a 

possessed m his own Right of nftv Acres of Member is to be 

Elected, deemed 

Land in the said Parish District or village for qualified to vote for 

such representa- 

which the Member or Members is or are to be 'ive- 
elected to represent in the General Assembly 
shall be deemed a person qualified for Electing 
a Representative or Representatives to serve as 
Member or Members of the Commons House 
of Assembly for the Parish District Town or 
village Vv'herein he is possessed of the above 
Qualification. And for preventing frauds as toen'erthe^Nfmes 
much as may be in all Elections, It is hereby Sid^ates'*''^ in' °a 
Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that the the° Name°of ^tL 
Returning Officer shall com.e to the place at the Name of the Per- 

. . , son voted for, and 

time appointed by the pubhck notice given and no Voter to alter 

his vote after en- 

shall enter the Names of every person presented tered, or vote twice 

■^ •■• at the same Elec- 

or presenting himself as a Candidate in a Book 'i°n- 
or Roll leaving a fair Column under each Can- 
didates Name for the names of the Voters and 
when a Voter comes and Votes the Returning 
Officer shall repeat distinctly the person or per- 
sons Names for whom the vote is given before 
he writes the Voters Name in the fair Column 
under the name of such Candidate or Candi- 
dates as shall be voted for by that person and 



2S2 APPENDICES. 

that no Voter shall alter his vote after it be 
entered or vote twice at one and the same Elec- 
tion and that the Candidate or Candidates who 
^Thej:andidateor gf|.gj- ^^ PqJj jg closcd and the votcs summcd 

Candidates having 

v^mes ^(upon'^Scru- up shall bc found (upon Scrutiny made if de- 
mandeTdecbred'^a mandcd) to havc tho Majority of votes shall be 
ber^ of °he A^- dccmcd and declared to be a Member or Mem- 
bers of the succeeding Commons House of' 
Assembly. And be it Enacted by the Au- 
Vote to be taken thority aforcsaid that the time for taking votes at 

between the hours -^ " 

and e^onhe'Sock any clcction shall be between the hours of Nine 
i"d'no eiec'bnto ©f the Clock iu the forenoon and Six in the after- 
th°an'2"days,imkss noou and that at adjourning the Poll at Con- 
manded.'"^ '^ ^ vcnicnt hours during the time of an Election the 
Returning Officer shall first sum up the votes 
given for each Candidate and declare the same 
to the Candidates present and also declare the 
same when he has opened the Poll at the ensu- 
ing Meeting and that the said Election shall not 
continue longer than two days unless Scrutiny 
is demanded. PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS that 
Proviso the Returning Ofificer is hereby empowered and 

Returning Officer ^ ■*• 

to close the Poll two required to close the Poll when he or they 

hours alter the last -^ -' 

dme^wfth STn^ ^^^^ Waited two hours after the last vote has 
present.^''"''"^^'^' bccu givcu Or at any time by and with the con- 
sent and desire of all the Candidates then 
present. AND be IT Enacted by the Au- 
turnld^ tT^be "^t thority aforesaid that every person who shall 

Member of the As- i 1,1 1 , 1 ■ 1 ,• 1 ■ 1 

sembiy to be a free DC electcd and rctumcd as IS before directed 

born subject ora,^., 1.1 i r^ 

foreign person nat- by this Act to scrvc as z. Member in the Com- 

uralized professing 

the Christian Re- mous Housc of Asscmbly in this Province shall 

ligeon of the age of 

andTRefidenrof ^^ qualified in the following manner (viz) That 
l^ll^fanSsiHd ^^e shall be a free born Subject of Great Brit- 
Land°ther«^n" °^ ^iu or of the dominious thereunto belonging or 



APPENDICES. 283 

a foreign person naturalized possessing the 
Christian Religeon and no other and that hath 
arrived at the age of Twenty One years and 
hath been a Resident in this Province for 
twelve months before the date of the said Writ 
and being legally possessed in his own Right 
in this Province of a Tract of Land Containing 
at least five hundred Acres. AND BE IT En- 
acted by the Authority aforesaid that if any 
Member or Members chosen or hereafter to be 
chosen to serve in this or any other Commons 
House of Assembly shall refuse to serve or 
any Member or Members should die or depart M^SberecWnto 
this Province or shall be expelled the House L'ons House of °a^: 
so that his or their Seat or Seats become se™eorshaiTdfeo? 
vacant then and in such case the House shall or'^bfexpened'the 

_, _, . House. The House 

by address to the Governor or Commander m to address the Gov- 
ernor to issue new 

Chief for the time being Signify the Same and wrk or Wrks to 

° ^ ^ elect a Member or 

desire that a new Writ or Writs may issue to Members to fiu up 

■' such vacancy. 

elect a Member or Members to fill up the 
vacancy or vacancies in the House and in Con- 
sequence of such Address a new Writ or Writs 
shall be issued to chuse in that Parish District 
Town or Village such other Member or Mem- 
bers to serve in the place or places of such 
Member or Members whose seat or seats are 
become vacant and every person so chosen 
and returned as aforesaid shall attend the Com- 
mons House of Assembly and shall be reputed, 
deemed and judged a Member thereof. AND 
BE IT Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that 
if any returning officer as aforesaid shall admit Returning offi- 

J fc> cer not to take the 

of or take the vote of any person refusing at Jet^s^'to^'talTthe 
the request of one of the Candidates or any two scribed^*^"^^'" ^^^' 



284 APPENDICES. 

persons qualified to vote to take the following 

oath : " I, A B do swear that I am legally 

mim^teredwhenrf- " posscsscd in my own Right of a freehold Es- 

. Voters!*^ '° ^'^^ "tate of fifty acres of Land in the Township 

" or District of and that such Estate 

" is legally or bona fide in my own right and 
" not made over or Granted to me purposely or 
" fraudulently to intitle me to vote at this 
"Election" — or at the request of any Candi- 
date or any two freeholders shall refuse to 
administer the following oath to any Candi- 
date who is hereby obliged to take this Oath 
if so required : " I, A B do swear that I am 
ministered to^ any " in my own Right truly and legally — possessed 

Candidate if re- . „ . 1 1 a r t 1 • i • t • 

quired. " of Dvc huudrcd Acrcs of Eand withm this 

"Province and that the said Right is truly and 
" Bona fide within myself and not fraudulently 
"made over or granted to me for the purpose 
" of qualifying me to be a Representative in 
"General Assembly" or if the Provost Marshal 

m^wn^any fraud- ^hall makc any fraudulent return or shall in- 

ulent return or in- n „ j i_ • n 1 

fluencing or per- tluence or cudcavor to mfluence or persuade 

suading any voter -ir- ,. ^ i/-,i- 1 

not to vote as he any Votcr not to vote as he first designed 

first designed to , ,, , 

forfeit /50 Sterling sfiall forfeit for cach and every such offence 

to be to his Majesty 

for defraying the thc sum of fifty pounds Sterling; to be to 

expence of the sit- ' . -' a • o 

Asfembiv^ '^''"'''^^' ^'^^ Majcsty for defraying the expence of the 
sitting of the General Assembly and to be 
sued for and recovered in the General Court 
of this Province by Bill Plaint or Informa- 

Marshli 0°"^^ tion. And BE IT ENACTED by the Authority 

person authorized ^ -ii it-. 

by him to manage aforcsaid that thc Provost Marshal or any per- 

an Election not to 

return himself as a son propcrly authorizcd by him to manage an 

Member to same m ■^ " 

^nTrefetnlTo^N Elcction as aforcsald shall not return himself 
House&nTii! ^s a Member to serve in General Assembly and 



APPENDICES. 



285 



if the Provost Marshal refuses or neglects on a ter about the Ekc- 

o tion of Members re- 

Summons from the Commons House of As- 'efusfng^^o^'^how 
sembly to attend that House to inform them to forfe^°'i5o^o" be 
the best of his knowledge of any matter or dis- dfreaed/^ 
pute that did arise or may have arisen about 
the election of the Member or Members by him 
returned to serve in Assembly or refusing to 
shew the Poll taken shall forfeit for every such 
offence fifty Pounds Sterling to be applied and 
recovered as herein before directed. And BE 
IT FURTHER ENACTED by the Authority afore- 
said that if any person or persons whatsoever Any Person on 

the day of Election 

shall on the day appointed for the Election of attempting by any 

■^ -^ arrest or threat to 

a Member or Members to serve in the Com- overawe any Per- 

son to vote against 

mons House of Assembly as aforesaid presume jj^ BHbeSTobtaFn 
to violate the freedom of the said Election by Zl ixlltxll men- 
any Arrest Menaces or Threats or attempt to perso°n for "not vot^ 

A rr • U 1. J , . ^ ing as he would 

over awe Affright or force any person qualmed have had him, on 

^ sufficient proof be- 

to vote against his Inclination or Conscience fore two justices to 

be bound over to 

or otherwise by Bribery obtain any vote or who !,'i<= "F^ General 

•' "^ ^ Session of the 

shall after the said Election is over menance Council and if con- 
victed to forfeit a 

despightfully use or abuse any person be- ^"™ "ot exceeding 

cause he has not voted as he or they would 

have had him every such person so offending 

upon due and sufficient proof made of such 

his violence or abuse menacing or threating 

before any two Justices of the Peace shall 

be bound over to the next General Sessions 

of the Peace himself in Twenty Pounds 

Sterling money and two Sureties each in 

Ten Pounds like money and to be of good 

behavior and abide the Sentence of the Said 

Court where if the offender or offenders are 

Convicted and found Guilty of such offence 



286 ' APPENDICES. 

or offences as aforesaid then he or they shall 
each of them forfeit a sum not exceeding 
Twenty Pounds Sterling money and be Com- 
mitted to Goal without bail or Mainprize 
till the same be paid which fine so imposed 
shall be paid as before directed. And BE IT 
^. ^ FURTHER Enacted by the Authority aforesaid 

No Civil Officer -^ ^ 

to execute any Writ ^hat uo Civil Officcr whatsocvcr shall exe- 

on the Body of any 

Person qualified to ^^^^ ^j-^y \Yj.}|- qj. other Clvil Proccss whatso- 

vote in his Journey J 

from °the^ piac'e" o" ^vcr upou the Body of any person qualified to 
hl^^'e" not'^° more votc for Mcmbcrs of thc Commons House of 
jomney ""."^return- Asscmbly as bcforc in this Act directed either 

ing from or during . ^ . , • i • . t ^i 

his stay there on HI his Joumcy to or HI his rctum from the 

that account, or 

within 48 hours placc of such clectiou providing he shall not 

after the Scrutiny 1 <=> 

for such Election is be morc than forty eight hours upon his Tour- 

nnished under the ^ o x ^ 

noriS^eeding ^2™ ^^Y either going to, returning from or during 

on'thTBody'rfTJch ^is Stay there upon that account or within 

timT^iimited" de^ forty eight hours after the Scrutiny for such 

election is finished under the Penalty of a sum 

not exceeding Twenty Pounds Sterling Money 

to be recovered of and from the Officer that 

shall arrest or serve any Process as aforesaid 

after such manner and form and to be disposed 

of as herein before is directed and all such 

Writs or Warrants executed .on the Body of 

any person either going to or being at within 

the time limited by this Clause or returning 

from the place where such election is appointed 

to be managed he being qualified to give in his 

vote thereat are hereby declared void and null. 

exlndtodebTr'the ^ND BE IT ENACTED by thc Authority aforc- 

of"tTe"%ight°"t^o said that this Act or any part thereof shall not 

the direction of this cxtend to debar the Commons House of As- 

Act the Qualifica- 1 1 r 1 tt 1 

lion of their Mem- scmblyof the Right to Judgc and determme 



APPENDICES. 287 

agreeable to the direction of this Act the Oual- ^^^^^^ °^„y*° p'^fj^f. 
ification of any Member or Members of that A^S^biJ ^hTreSl 
House or to take away from the General As- Province. 
sembly or any part thereof any Power or Privi- 
ledge whatever that any General Assem-bly or 
any part thereof heretofore of Right had might 
could or ought to have had in the said Province 
anything herein Contained to the Contrary in 
anywise notwithstanding. PROVIDED ALWAYS Proviso. 
that this Act or any part thereof shall not be 
construed to take away the power and prerog- 
ative given the Governor or Commander in 
Chief for the time being from the Crown to ad- 
journ prorogue or dissolve any General Assem- 
bly of this Province when and as often as he 
shall think fit and expedient so to do or to take 
any' other power or Prerogative whatever had 
from the Crown. 

By order of the By order of the 

Upper House. Commons House of Assemibly. 

James Habersham. Grey Elliott, Speaker. 

In the Council Chamber 

the Ninth day of June, 1761. 

Assented to, 

G. A. Wright. 



APPENDICES. 



An Act. 
To ascertain the manner and form of Electing Members to 
represent the Inhabitants of this Province in the Commons 
House of Assembly. 

first Time 27*:^ March. 1 
Second Time 30th — ■ — 
Read \ third Time 9* April )- \']6\. 

and passed the Commons 
House of Assembly. 

Thos. Barrington, Clerk. 

Upper House, 
f first Time lO* April. ~ 

^ Second Time 13*^ 

Read ^ , . , ^. t ^, > 1761. 

third Time loth May 

and passed. 

Chas. Watson, C. G. A. 
9 June 1761. 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

Atlanta, Ga., April 21st, 1892. 
I hereby certify that the foregoing Seven (7) pages con- 
tain a true and correct copy of An Act now of file in this 
office, " to assertain the manner and form of electing mem- 
bers to represent the inhabitants of this Province in the 
Commons House of Assembly." Assented to June 9th, 1761. 

^ Given under my hand and official seal. 

[Signed] PHILIP CoOK, 

Secretary of State. 



fSeal of the 1 
•; State •> 
l.of Georgia. J 



APPENDIX C. 

AUTHORITIES QUOTED. 

Albany. Collections on the History of Albany. 4 vols. Albany, 1 865-70. 

Allinson's Laws. See New Jersey. 

Ames and Goodell. See Massachusetts. 

Arnold, Samuel G. History of the State of Rhode Island a^id Providence Plan- 
tations. i6^6-i7go. 2 vols. New York, 1859-60. 

Bacon's Laws. See Maryland. 

Baldwin, Simeon E. Early History of the Ballot in Connecticut. Publica- 
tions of the American Historical Association, pt. iv, 90, Series of 1890. 

Bancroft, George. History of the United States. 9 vols. 23rd ed. Boston, 
1870. , 

Belknap, Jeremy. History of Neiv Hampshire. 3 vols. Philadelphia, Boston, 
1784-92. 

Bozman, John Leeds. History of Maryland. 2 vols. Baltimore, 1837. 

Brigham. See Plymouth. 

Brodhead, John Romeyn. History of the State of New York. 2 vols. New 
York, 1859-71. 

Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. 2 vols. 2d ed. London, 1889. 

Century Dictionary. 6 vols. iSTew York, 1889-91. 

Campbell, Douglas. The Puritan in Holland, England and America. 2 vols. 
New York, 1892. 

Chalmers, George. Political Annals of the Present United Colonies. Lon- 
don, 1780. 

Coffin, Joshua. Sketch of the History of Newbury, Nezvbiiryport and West 
Newbury. Boston, 1845. 

Colden, Cadwallader. History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada. 
London, 1747. 

Colonial Charters. A list of copies of Charters from the Co?nmissioners for 
Trade and Plantations. London, 1741. 

Connecticut. Laws. Cambridge, 1673. 



2 go APPENDICES. 

Connecticut. Ads and Laws of His Majesties Colony of Connecticut in New 
England. New London, 1715. 
This is the edition generally referred to in the course of this work as Ses- 
sion Laws. In Connecticut as well as in one or two of the other Colonies 
the laws passed at each successive session of the general court were 
printed and paged in continuation until a new revision was made, 

Acts and L.aws. New London, 1750. ' 

The second revision, 

Acts and Laws. New London, 1769. 

Public Acts. 1819. 

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, jbsb-iyyj. 15 vols. Hart- 
ford, 1850-90, 

Cooper, See South Carolina, 

Cox, EvERSHAM, Antient Parliamentary Elections. London, 1868, 

De Franqueville, Alfred, C. E. F, Le Gouvem^nent et le Parlejnent Brittan- 
iques. 3 vols, Paris, 1887. 

Delaware, Laws. Printed by B, Franklin and D. Hall, Philadelphia, 1752. 

Laws, Vol. LI. Printed by James Adams. Wilmington, 1763, 

Laws, i'joo-i'jc)2. 2 vols. Printed by James Adams, New Castle, 1797. 

s Douglas, William. A Summary Historical and Political, df-c., of the British 
Settlements in North America. Boston, 1747, 

Duke's Laws, See Pennsylvania, 

England, The Statutes at Large. Magna Charta to 25 Geo, III. 

There are a number of editions of the Statutes, that of Ruff head (iSvols. 
London, 1763- 1 800), probably being the best. 

Farmer, John and Moore, Jacob. Neiv Hampshire Historical Collections. 3 
vols. Concord, 1822-24, 

Georgia. Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia. Compiled by Watkins, 

Philadelphia, 1800, 
A Codification of the Statute Law of Georgia. By William A, Hotch- 

Kiss, New York, 1845, 

Acts passed by the General Assembly, i7jS~^774- Now first printed. 

Philadelphia, 1881. 

Gneist, Rudolf von. History of the English Constitution. 2 vols. Translated. 
New York, 1886. 

Gordon, Thomas F. The History of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia;, 1829. 
Harrington, James. Works, edited by Poland. London, 1771, 
Hawks, Francis L, Llistory of North Carolina. 2 vols, Fayetteville, 1857-8, 
Hening, See Virginia, 



APPENDICES. 291 

House of Commons. Resolutions and Orders of the House of Convmons. 

This is the Journal of the House of Commons. From 1547 to i860, 115 
volumes were published, the first seventeen volumes covering the period 
from 1547 to 1 7 14. 

Howard, George E. An Introduction to the local Constitutional History of the 

United States. Vol.1. Baltimore, 1889. 
Leaming and Spicer. See New Jersey. 
Lechford, Thomas. Plaine Dealing; or Newes from New England. London, 

1642. 

McMahon, John V. L. An Historical View of the G overnment of Maryland. 

Baltimore, 1831. 
Martin, Francis Xavier. The History of North Carolina. 2 vols. New 

Orleans, 1829, 

Maryland. Acts of Assembly. Printed by John Baskett. London, 1723. 

-■ Laws of Maryland at Large. Edited by Thomas Bacon. Baltimore, 

1765- 
This is the edition referred to as Bacon's Laws. The pages are not num- 
bered, but are headed with the regnal or proprietary years. 

Archives. Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly, i6^'/-8j. 3 vols. 

Baltimore, 1883-9. 

Massachusetts. The Book of the General Laws and Libertyes. Cambridge, 
1660. 



The General Laws and Liberties. Cambridge, 1672. 

There were numerous supplements to the editions of 1660 and 1672. 
Laws. Edited by Wait. Boston, 1814. 



This reprint contains nearly all the laws issued under the charter of 1628. 

Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New 

England. 5 vols, in 6. Boston, 1853-4. 

Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Edited by Ames 

and GooDELL. 4 vols. Boston, 1869. 
This reprint contains nearly all the session laws made under the charter of 
1691. 

Massachusetts Historical Society. Collectiotzs. Vol. 23. Boston, 1833. 
Moore, John W. History of North Carolina, 2 Vols. Raleigh, 1880. 
Nevill's Laws. See New Jersey. 
New Hampshire. Acts and Laws. Printed by Daniel Fowle, Portsmouth, 

1761. 
Acts and Laxvs. Printed by Daniel and Robert Fowle, Portsmouth, 

1771. 
Provincial Papers. 16 vols. Concord, 1867-87. 



2Q2 APPENDICES. 

New Haven. Laws. London, 1656. 

Records of the Colony and Jurisdiction. i6j8-i66j. avals. Hartford, 

1857-8. 

New Jersey. Laws. Printed by William Bradford. New York, i 704. 

The Acts of the General Asseinbly. Edited by Samuel Nevill, Esq. 

Philadelphia, 1752. 

A second volume published in 1 761 contains the laws enacted after 1752. 

The Grants, Concessions and Original Constitutions of the Province of 

A^ew Jersey. The Acts passed during the Proprietary Cover 71771 ents. 
Edited by Aaron Leaming and Jacob Spicer. Philadelphia, 1758. 

Acts of the Ge7ieral Assejnbly. Edited by Samuel Allinson. Burling- 
ton, 1776. 
Archives of the State. 10 vols. Newark, 1880-8. 



New York. The Laws. Printed by William Bradford, New York, 1710, 
your7ial of the Votes and Proceedings of the Ge7ieral Assei7ibly of the 

Colony. j6gi-i'/6j. 2 vols. New York, 1 764-66. 
Laws of New York from i6gi to 177J inclusive. Edited by Peter Van 

Schaack. 2 vols, paged consecutively. New York, 1774. 
Docu77ie7its relative to the Colo7iial PIisto7y of the State of New York. 14 

vols. Albany, 1856-1883. 
— AIa7i7ial of the Conmion Cou7tcil of New York. New York, 1868. 

New York Historical Society. Collectio7is. 3d series. Vol. Ill, pt. i. New 

York, 1857. 
Collections for the year 188^. The Bu7'ghers of New A77isterda7ii a7td 

the Freejnen of N'ew York, i6yj-i866. New York, 1886. 

North Carolina. A Collectio7i of all the Public Acts of Assembly. Edited by 

Swann. Printed by James Davis, Newbern, 1752. 
A Collectio7i of all the Acts of Assembly. Newbern, 1 764. 

A complete Revisal of all the Acts of Assembly. Printed by Davis, New- 
bern, 1773. 

Colo7iial Records, ibbs-jyjb. 10 vols. Raleigh, 18S6-90. 

O'Callaghan, E. B. History of the Nezv Netherla7id. 2 vols. New York, 

1846-8. 
l7itroductio7i to the Jour7ial of the New York Legislative Cotcncil. Lat- 
ter in 2 vols. Albany, 1861. 

Laws a7td Ordina7ices of New Neihe7-la7id, 1638-74. Albany, 1868. 

Palfrey, John G. , History of New Engla7id. 4 vols. Boston, 1859-75. 



APPENDICES. 



293 



Pennsylvania. A Collection of all the Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania iVow 
in Force. Printed by B. Franklin, Philadelphia, 1 742. 

This as well as most of the other editions of the Pennsylvania laws, contains 
the charters. 

Votes and Proceedings of the House of Represeiitatives of the Province 

of Pennsylvania, 1682— I'j'jb. 6 vols. Philadelphia, 1752-76. 

The Charters and Acts of Assembly. 2 vols. Printed by Peter Miller 

and Comp. Philadelphia, 1762. 

The Acts of Assembly. Printed by Hall and Sellers. Philadelphia, 

1775- 

Archives. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-6. 

Colonial Records. 17 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-60. 

Charter and Laws, ibyb-ijoo. Printed by Authority of the State. 

Harrisburg, 1879. 

This edition contains not only the laws and charters of Penn's government 
down to 1700, but also the Duk-e of York's Book of Laws. The latter is 
the code promulgated at the East Hampton convention of 1664, together 
with the additions and amendments made subsequently by the court of 
assizes. See p. 19, ante. 

Plowden, Edmond. Commentaries. English Lav/ Reports, 1550-S0. 2 vols. 
Plymouth. Laws. Edited by Brigham. Boston, 1836. 

Most of the laws contained in this volume were also reprinted in the eleventh 
volume of the Plymouth Colony Records. 

New Plymouth Colony Records. 12 vols, in 10. Boston, 1855-61. 

Poore, B. Perley, editor. Federal and State Constittdions. 2 vols. Wash- 
ington, 1877. 

Proud, Robert. History of Pennsylvania. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1797. 

Prynne, William. Previa Pariamentaria Rediviva. London, 1662. 

Ramsay, David. History of Sotith Carolina. 2 vols. Charleston, 1809. 

Rhode Island. Acts and Laws. Boston, 1719. 

Acts and Laws. Printed by James Franklin, Newport, 1730. 

Acts and Laws. Printed by the Widow Franklin. Newport, 1744. 

Acts and Laws. Printed by J. Franklin. Newport, 1752. 

Acts and Laws. Printed by Samuel Hall. Newport, 1767. 

This is Hall's Code. 

Acts attd Laws. Printed by Solomon Southwick. Newport, 1772. 

Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantatiojis. 10 

vols. Providence, 1856-65. 

Rhode Island Historical Society, Proceedings of Providence, 1872-3. 

Rider, S. S. An Inquiry concerning the Origin of the Clause in the Laws of 



2^4 APPENDICES. 

Rhode Island (^lyig-iySj) disfranchising Roma7i Catholics. Providence, 

1889. 
Rivers, William James. Sketch of the History of South Carolina. Charleston, 

1856. 

Salkei,d, William. English Law Reports. 1689-17 12. 3 vols. 

Sharpe, Governor Horatio. Corresfondence, I'jt^T^-bi. 2 yo\s. in Maryland 
Archives. Baltimore, 1889-90. 

Smith, Samuel. History of New fersey. Burlington, 1765. 

South Carolina. The Laws. Edited by Nicholas Trott. Charleston, 1736. 

Statutes at large of Sotith Carolina. Edited by T. CooPER. 4 vols. 

Columbia, 1836-8. 

Stevens, William B. History of Georgia to ijgS. 2 vols. New York, Phila- 
delphia, 1847-59. 

Stith, William. The History of the First Discovery and Settle?nent of Virginia. 
Williamsburg, 1747. 

Stubbs, William. Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. 4th ed. Ox- 
ford, 1883. 

Swift, Zephaniah. A System of the Laws of Connecticut. 2 vols. Windham, 
1795-6- 

Troward, Richard. A Collection of the Statutes in force relating to Elections. 
London, 1790. 
Most of the English Statutes at Large which have been quoted in this work 
are to be found in Troward's collection. 

Walsh, Robert. An Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain. Philadel- 
phia, 1 819. 

Weise, Arthur J. History of Albany. Albany, 1884. 

Whitehead, William A. East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments. 
2d ed. Newark, 1875. 

WmsoR, Justin, editor. Memorial History of Boston. 4 vols. Boston, 1880-1. 

Narrative and Critical History of Ajuerica. 8 vols. Boston, 1889. 

Winthrop, Governor John. Journal. Edited by James Savage, under the 

title of: The History of New England, 1630-164^. Hartford, 1790. 
Van Schaack's Laws. See New York. 

Viner, Charles. A general Abridgme^it of Law and Eqtdty. 30 vols. 2d ed. 
London, 1 79 1 -4. 

Virginia. The Statutes at Large ; being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia 
from the first session of the Legislature in the year i6ig. Edited by Wil- 
liam Waller Hening. 13 vols. New York, Richmond, Philadelphia, 
1819-23. 



APPENDICES. 



295 



Note : Besides the editions of the statutes mentioned in the foregoing list, the 
writer has made a personal examination of the Charlemagne Tower collection of 
American colonial laws, in the Library of the Pennsylvania Historical Associa- 
tion. In addition he has consulted the collections of the New York Bar Associa- 
tion and of the New York Historical Society, which are excelled in completeness 
only by the Philadelphia collection, and which contains some volumes not in- 
cluded in the latter. A few statutes which it is believed were not published in 
any of the knowti editions of the colonial laws, were transcribed from the origi- 
nals now on file in the capitals of the various States or from copies in the British 
Public Record Office in London, and are published in Appendix B of this work. 



APPENDIX D. 

TABLE OF BRITISH REGNAL YEARS, 

FROM THE FIRST PARMAMENT UP TO THE CLOSE OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 
FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE TO THE STATUTES AT LARGE. 



Sovereign. 


Commencement of Reign. 


Number of 
Regnal Years. 




November 20th, 1272 


35 


Edward II 


Edward III 




51 


Richard II 




Henry IV 


September 30th, 1399 


14 


Henry V 


Henry VI 


September ist, 1422 


39 
23 


Edward IV 


Edward V 




Richard III ." 




3 

24 
38 

I 


Henry VII 




Henry VIII 




Edward VI 




Mary • 




Elizabeth 


November. 17th, 1558 


45 
23 
24 


James I 


Charles I 




The Commonwealth 




Charles lU 




37 
4 
14 
13 
13 
34 
60 


Tames II 




William and Mary ^ 

Anne 


February 13th, 1689 


George I 




George 11 




George III 


October 25th, 1760 



' Although Charles II did not ascend the throne until May 29th, 1660, his regnal years were 
computed from the death of Charles I, January 30th, 1649. The year of the restoration of Charles 
II is therefore styled the twelfth year of his reign. 

= After the death of Mary on December 28th, 1694, William reigned alone under the style of 
William III. 



APPENDICES. 



297 



TABLE OF PROPRIETARY YEARS OF THE LORDS 
BALTIMORE. 

FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE TO THE MARYLAND STATUTES. 



Proprietor. 



Csecilius . 
Charles ^ . 
Benedict • 
Charles . . 
Frederick 



I Number of 
Commencement of Proprietorship. ; Proprietary Years. 



June 20th, 1632 

November 30th, 1675 . 
February 20th, 1714. 

April i6th, 1714 

April 23rd, 1 75 1 



44 
40 

37 
20 



^ From August, 1691, to May, 1715, the government of Maryland was administered by the 
Crown. 

George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, died before the Charter passed the Great Seal. He 
was therefore never proprietor. The title ceased with Frederick, sixth Lord Baltimore, who died 
in 1771, leaving no legitimate issue. 



The compound dates (e, g. 1635-6) used in the course of this 
work refer to that part of the calendar year which preceded the com- 
mencement of the new year. Until after the adoption of the New 
Style by act of Parliament in 1 75 1, the new year began in the month 
of March. January, February and part of March were therefore 
reckoned in both years. 



nTBLICiLTIOlTS. 

FIVE VOLiUMES COMPLETED — THey wiil be sent s— "bound in cloth, 
Rt $5 each: any t^vo for $9 ; any tliiee for $13 ; any four for $17 ; and all 
five for $31 ; all five volnmes bound in lialf morocco, $33.50; single vol- 
umes in balf morocco, $5.50.. Unbound, $1 per volume. Forwarded 
posf-paid, 

Subscription to Volume VI, $4.00. 



CONTENTS OF VOLUMES. 

Nos. 4 and 5.— Statistics and Eco- 
nomics. By Richmond Mayo-Smith. 
Out of print, sold only in the complete vol. 

No. (J The Stability of Prices. By 

Simon M. Patten. Price 75 cents. 



Vol. I. — Bound, $j : Unbowid, $4. 

mo. 1. — Report of the organization 
of tlie American Economic Asso- 
ciation. By Richard T. Ely. 

JVos. 3 and 3 —The Relation of the 
Modern Municipality to the Gas 
Supply. By Edmund J. James. Out 
of print, sold only in the complete, volume. 

No. 4. — Co-operation in a Western 
City. By Albert Shaw. 

No. n. — Co-ope I atiojii in Ne^v Eng- 
land. Edward W. Bemis. 

No. G. — Relation of the State to In- 
dustrial Action. By Henry C. Adams. 

Vol. II. — Bound, $^ ; Unbound, $4. 

No. 1. — Three Phases of Co-opera- 
tion in the Weist. By Amos G. War- 
ner. Price yj cents. 

No. 3. — Historical Sketch of the 
Finances of Pennsylvania. By T. 
K. VVorthington, with an Iniroduction by 
Richard T. Ely. Price yj cents. 

No. 3.— The Railway Q,uestion. By 
Edmund J. James. Price yj cents. 

No. 4.— The Early History of tiiVi 
English "Wooleit Industry. By W, 
J.Ashley. Price y^ cents. 

No. .5. — Tvt^o Chapters on the Medi- 
vseal Guilds of England. By Ed- 
win R. A. Seligman. t'rice yj cents. 

No. 6.— Th*» delation of Modern 
3Iunioipaliti«-s to ()tfa«i-Pubiic 
W"orlts. By H. C. Adams, George W. 
Knight, Davis R. Dewey, Charles 
Moore, Frank J. Goodnow and Arthur 
Y.^GER. Price y^ cents. 

Vol. III. — Bound, $^ ; Unbou7?d, $4. 

No. 1. — Three Papers Read at Meet- 
ing in Roston : " Statistics in Colleges," 
by Carroll D. Wright; "Sociology and 
Political Economy," by F. H. Giddings; 
"The Legal-Tender Decision.^," by E. J. 
James. Price ys cents. 

No. 3. — riapital and its Earnings. 
By Prof. J. B. Clark, 
Price 75 cents. 

No. 3 consists of three parts: "The 
Manual Laboring Class,'' by F. A. Walker; 
"Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley," by 
E. W, Bemis ; " Report of the Second An- 
nual Meeting," by Richard T. Ely. 
Price ys cents. 



Vol. IV. — Bound $s ; Unbound $4. 

No. 1. — Contributions to the Wages 
Q,uestion : " The Theory of Wages," by 
Stuart Wood ; " Possibility of a Scientific 
Law of Wages," by J. B. Clark. Price 
y J rents. 

No. 3. — Socialism in England. By 
Sidney Webb. Price y^ cents. 

No. 3.— Road Legislation for the 
American State. By Jeremiah W. 
Jenks. Price yjcents. 

No. 4. — Report of the Proreedings 
of the Third Annual Meeting. 
Price ys cents. 

No, 5.— Three Papers Read at Third 
Annual Meeting: " Malthus and 
Ricardo,'' by Simon N. Patten; "The 
Study of Statistics,'' by Davis R. Dewey ; 
" Analysis in Political Economy,'' by Wil- 
liam W. FoLWELL. Price y^ cents. 

Jfo. 6. — An Honest Dollar. By E. 
Benjamin Andrews. Price y^ cents. 

Vol. V. — Bound, $^ ; Unbound, $4. 

No. 1.— The Industrial Transition 

in Japan. By Veijiro Ono. Price $1.00. 

No. 3. — Tw^o Prize Kssays on Child 

Labor. I. By William F. Willoughby; 

M. By Miss Clare de Graffenried. 

Price ys cents. 
Nos. 3 and 4. — Two Papers on the 

Canal Q,ue3tion. L By Edmund J. 

James; II. ByLEWis M.Haupt. Price $i 00. 
No. 5.— History of the New YorU 

Property Tax. By John Christopher 

Schwab Price $r.oo. 
No. G.— The Educational Value of 

Political Ecojiomy. By Simon N. 

Patten. Price 75 cents. 

Vol. VI. — Subscription, $4.00. 

Nos. 1 and 3. — Report of <he Pro- 
ceedings of the Fourth Annual 
Meeting. Price $1.00. 



The Association -wilT Publish at least Six Numbers Annually. 
Subscription, $4.00 per Volume. 

For further information, address 

PUBLISHING AGENT, 

Americcin Economic Association, 

BALTIMORE, MD. 



BRITISH ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 



Council : 

The Right Hon. G. J. GOSCHEN, M.P., President. 



The Right Hon. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P., 
The Right Hon. H. C. E. CHILDERS, M.P., 
The Right Hon. LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P., 
The Right Hon. JOHN MORLEY, M.P., 



Vice-Presidents. 



Mr. JOHN BIDDULPH MARTIN. Treasurer. 
68 Lombard Street, E.G. 



Professor C. Bastaele. 

Mr. Henky R. Beeton. 

Mr. James Bonar. 

Mr. Charles Booth. 

Mr. John Burnett. 

Mr. Thomas Burt, M. P. 

Major Patrick George Cragik. 

Rev. Professor Cunningham, D. D. 

Mr. T. H. Elliott 

(Ho7i. Secretary) . 
Sir Thomas Farrer, Bart. 
Professor H. S. Foxwell 

{Hon. Secretary). 
Mr. Charles Gairdner. 

Dr. GiFFEN, C. B. 

Profebsor £. C. K. Gonn. 

Mr. Alfreu Spalding Harvey. 

Mr. Henry Higgs. 



Mr. Alfred Hoare. 

Mr. George Howell. M. P. 

Professor J K.. Ingram. 

Mr. J. N. Keynes 

Professor Alfred Marshall, 

Professor J. E. C. Munro. 

Professor J. S. Nicholson. 

Mr. R. H. Inglis Palgrave, F. R. S. 

Rev. L. R. Phelps. 

Mr. L. L. Price 

{Hon. Secretary^. 
Mr. John Rae. 

Sir Rawson Rawson. K. C. M. G., C. B. 
Mr. Frederick Seeeohm. 
Professor Henry Sidgwick. 
Mr. H. Llewellyn Smith. 
Rev. Philip Wicksteed. 



Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, M. A., D. C. L., Editor and Secretary. 



(XorrespouDents : 



Mr. F. C. Harrison for Calcutta 

(4, Harrington Street, Calcutta). 
Prof. J. Mayor for Canada 

(Universitj' of Toronto). 

Mr. A. Duckworth for New South Wales 

(87, Pitt Street, Sydney). 



Dr. Stephan Bauer for Austria-Hungary 
(i Reichsrath-Strasse, 23, Vienna). 
Dr. Mahaim for Belgium 

(322, Rue St. Giles, Liege). 
Prof. Charles Gide for France 

(Universite, Montpellier). 
Prof. GusTAV CoHN for Germany 

(Universliat, Konigsberg). 
Prof. H. B. Greven for Holland 

(Leiden). 
Mons. E. Castelot for Paris 

(158, Boulevard Mal'esherbes). 

Prof. F. Taussig for United States 

(Cambridge, Massachusetts). 

The Annual Subscription is a Guinea (26^ francs). Tliere is at present 
no entrance fee. Any member may at any time compound for his future yearly 
payments by paying at once the sum of Ten Guineas (265 francs). The Journal 
will be supplied to Members without charge. They will also receive gratis some 
ol the other publications which the Association may, from time to time, issue. 

Any person desirous of becoming a member of the Association is requested 
to send his name to Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, Briliih Ecv7i,>,nic Asso- 
ciation, 9, Adelphi 'J errace, London, W.C., who will submit it to the Council for 
approval at their next meeting. 

Editorial Communications should be addressed to Prof. F. V. Edgeworth, Balliol CoUege.O.xford. 
For Statements made by Contributors to the Journal, they alone are responsible. 



THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS. 



3f aDIEg IN PI3T0KY ^ND PQUTICg. 

Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS. 

The Eleventh Series (1803) "^o^ in progress. Subscription, $3.00. 

ANNUAL SERIES. 1883-1892. 

SERIES I.--LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pages. $4.00. 

SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pages. 
<Jt.oo. 

SERIES III.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 
595 pages. $4.00. 

SERIES IV.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TEN- 
URE. 600 pages. $3.50. 

SERIES v.— MUNICIPAL GOVERN-YIENT, HISTORY AND 
POLITICS. 559 pages. $3.50. 

SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 540 pages. ^3.50. 

SERIES VII.— SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FED- 
ERAL GOVERNMENT. 628 pages. $3.50. 

SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 
pages. ^3.50. 

SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, HISTORY.AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 
635 pages. ^3.50. 

SERIES X.— CHURCH AND STATE: COLUMBUS AND 
AMERICA. 630 pages. $3.50. 

EXTRA VOLUMES. 

I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By Chari.es H. Lever- 
JIORE. ^2.00. 

II. PHILADELPHIA, 16S1-1887. By Edward P. Allinson and Boies 
Penrose. $3.00. 

III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861. 
By George William Brown. $1.00. 

IV-V. LOCAL, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE U.>II- 
TED STATES. By George E. Howard. 

Vol. I. — Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. $3.00. 

Vol. XL- Development of the City and the Local Magistracies (in preparation). 

VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By Jeffrey R. Brackett. ^2.00. 

VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By 

W. W. WiLLOUGHBY. $1.25. 

VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED 
STATES AND JAPAN. By Inazo Nitobe. $1.25. 

IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZER- 
LAND. By John M. Vincent. I1.50. 

X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. Frank 
W. Blackmar. $2.00. 

XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTI- 
TUTION. By Morris M. Corn. ^1.50. 

XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By Charles M.Andrews, gi.50. 

XIII. AMERICA: ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1892 
By W. B. ScAiFE, #1.50. 

The set of ten series is now offered in a handsome library edition for $30.00. 
The ten series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-two volumes, for 
^48.00. 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMOHE, MARYLAND. 



Systematic Political Science 

BY THE 

UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF 
COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 



The University Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College 
have in preparation and intend to publish a series of systematic 
works covering the entire field of political science proper and of the 
allied sciences of public law and economics. The method of treat- 
ment will be historical, comparative and statistical ; and it will be the 
aim of the writers to present the latest results of institutional develop- 
ment and of scientific thought in Europe and America. Each work 
will be indexed by subjects and authors, and the last volume will 
contain a topical index to the entire series. 

The series will consist of the following nine works : 
Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics. By John 
W. Burgess. 

Comparative Constitutional Law of the American Com- 
monwealths. By Frederick W. Whitridge. 

Historical and Practical Political Economy. By Richmond 
Mayo-Smith. 

Historical and Comparative Science of Finance. By 
Edwin R. A. Seligman. 

Comparative Administrative Law and Science. By Frank 

J. GOODNOW. 

International Law. By John Bassett Moore. 

Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence. By Munroe 

Smith. 

History of Political Theories. By William A. Dunning. ' 
Literature of Political Science. By George H. Baker. 



The work of Prof. Burgess was published in 1891, by Ginn & Co. 
That of Prof. Gcodnow was published in 1893, by G. P. Putnam's 
Sons. 



COLUMBIA COLLEGE 

University Faculty of Political Science. 



Seth Low, LL.D., President. J. "W. Burgess, LL.D., Prof, of Constitutional History 
and Law. Rlcliinond Mayo-Smlth, Ph.D., Prof, of Political Economy. Munroe 
Smith, J. U. D., Prof, of Comparative Jurisprudence. F. J. Ooodnow, LL.B., Prof, of 
Administrative Law. E. R,. A. Seligniaii, Ph.D., Prof, of Political Economy and Finance. 
H. li. Osgood, Ph.D., (Adj.) Prof, of History. W. A. Dunning, Ph.D., (Adj.) Prof, of 
History. J. B. Moore, A. M., Prof, of International Law. F. W. Whitridge, LL.B., 
Lecturer on the History of New York. A. C. Bernllelm, Ph.D., Lecturer on City PoUtics. 
Frederic Bancroft, Ph.D., Lecturer on American History. C. B. Spalir, Ph.D., Lec- 
turer on Taxation. F. H. Olddlngs, A. M., Lecturer on Sociology. Ernest Freund, 
J U.D. Lecturer on Administration. St. F. Weston, A.M., Assistant in Economics. 



COURSES OF LECXriTES. 

I. mSTOR-Y. — (i) Outlines of Mediaeval History (undergraduate course) ; (2) Outlines 
of Modern History (undergraduate course) ; (3) European History since 1815 (undergraduate 
course): (4) Political and Constitutional History of Europe ; (5) Political and Constitutional His- 
tory of England to 1688 ; (6) Political and Constitutional History of England since 1688 ; (7) 
Political and Constitutional History of the United States ; (8) Constitutional History of the 
American Colonies ; (9) Constitutional History of the United States since 1861 ; (10) Political 
History of New York State; (11) History of the Relations between England and Ireland; (12) 
Historical and Political Geography ; (13) History of France since 1830 ; (14) Seminarium in Eu- 
ropean History ; (15) Serainariura in American History. 

II. POLiITiCAIi ECOXOMT.— (1) Elements of Political Economy (undergraduate 
course); (2) Historical and Practical Political Economy; (3) Science of Finance; (4) Commu- 
nism and Socialism ; (^) Statistics: Methods and Results; (6) History of Economic Theories; 

(7) Financial History of the United States; (8) Tariff History of the United States ; (9) Railroad 
Problems; (10) Taxation and Distribution ; (11) Sociology ; (12) Crime and Penology ; (13) Sem- 
inarium in Political Economy ; (14) Seminarium in Science of Finance ; (15) Seminarium in 
Social Science. 

III. CONSTITUTIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE IjAW.— (i) Compara- 
tive Constitutional Law of Einope and the United States ; (2) Comparative Constitutional Law 
of the Commonwealths of the United States ; (3) Administrative Law ; (4) Law of Taxation ; (5) 
Municipal Corporations : (6) City and State Politics ; (7) Seminarium in Constitutional Law ; 

(8) Seminarium in Administration. 

IV. D1PI.OMACY ANI> INTERNATIONAL L.AW (i) History of European 

Diplomacy : (2) History of American Diplomacy; (3) Principles of International Law; (4) Ex- 
tradition ; (5) Seminarium in International Law. 

V. ROMAN liAW AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE.— (i) Insti- 
tutes of Roman Law ; (2) History of European Law, to Justinian ; (3) History of European Law, 
since Justinian ; (4) Comparative Jurisprudence : General Principles ; (5) Comparative Jurispru- 
dence : Special Relations ; (6) International Private Law ; (7) Seminarium in Comparative Leg- 
slation. 

VI. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHV.-(i) History of Political Theories, ancient and 
mediaeval ; (2) History of Political Theoiies, modern : (3) History of American Political Philos- 
ophy ; (4) Seminarium in Political Theories of the XlXth Century. 



The course of study covers three years. The degree of A. B. is conferred at the end of the 
first year; A.M. at t! e end of tlie second; and Ph.D. at the end of the third. Any person 
not a candidate for a degiee may attend any of the courses at any time by payment of a propor- 
tional fee. Twenty-four fello'wslilps at $500 each are awarded to advanced students. 
Three prize lectureships of $500 each for three years are open to competition of graduates. 
For further information address Registhar. 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND POBLIC LlW, 

EDITED BY 

THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 



1. The Divorce Problem — A Study in Statistics. 

By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 

2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United 

States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley 
Administrative Bill. 

By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 

3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan 

Island. 

By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 

4. Financial History of Massachusetts. 

By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D. Price $1.00. 

Vol. I complete, 396 pp., price, ;^2.oo; bound, $2.50. 

"voniTJivnE II. 

1. The Economics of the Russian Village. 

By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 

2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. 

By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. Price, 75c. 

3. Special Assessments : A Study in Municipal Finance. 

By Victor Rosewater, Ph. D. Price, 75c. 

Vol. II complete, 503 pp., price, ;^2.ooj bound, $2.50. 

"VOXjTJilVnEl III. 

1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. 

By Cortlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D.— Price, $1.50. 

2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the Amer- 

ican Colonies. 

By George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.00. 
VoL III complete, price $2.00] bound, $2.50. 

^OLXJIvdlE I-V. 
.1. Financial History of Virginia. 

By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D.— Price, 75c. 
2. The Inheritance Tax. 

By Max West, Ph. D.— Price, 75c. 
For further information apply to 

Professor EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. 

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK. 



LBFe '05 



^^ 



i> 9^ 















/> 













r ^Q. 



0^' 



^o^ 










<^ a 



,v ^ 






'-fe, "•'" v'^*^'-" 







* Q, 



^%.^^ 









o.V' ^ % 







L> „ V » - < 




.<?-' 



.^^ ^^ 



C^ 



.^ 



V 



V - 






%, "' ' C^^-^'^o. ''^■"' ^ \y.^<^o, ^^ -— ^,v„v.o 



^-./-r.T^^/ 



^^^"- 



-^^ 




C5 ^^ 







' X.#?i»:^-=\..^^ 






^■p 










^- <eib 



0^ 



'^ "^.o^ 







'' <e^ 






^ .^^ 



O 




'' '^ 






>^.v.o/<5^/--^ v\%-o. "^. 



0,^^ 



^^" ^ 




c^' 






^^^ 



V '^'""'■^'■^^ '^\- "^ ^ cl '' « ""^ 






f :mk\ %^<^ 







''^_ A^ *' 










'/"^■^.^ J3 



y -^ % 




w.^^ 

o ci ^ 




v% cP^.,^_^;^^% ^^^i;^^^^ ^°^-^^'<'% 



^^n< 



■oJ 
V ^ ^ " ^ % . V 




x^' 



^^^ ^^ ° 




.^^ ^^ 



^r -\ -.:v^\^'r <J.^^' ^' _ '^.^^^^r <^^^ 













\%. .^^ 






%■ %. .^«. ,r 







'^- ^ aV 

5.? '^v^ 



< 










0^' 



^^ ^^ 




cx^' 



^<^9. 




0.^' 



0-, 'j 







:♦ 



.^ 




» ci 






c\ 



■■\,«^ 



: \ ,*^ 



V 



/• „ ^ * ^ 












■P^ . s ^ '.' ^/. 'X:^. "" rP^' s ^ V ^// .^<^ cP^^^' '^'^'"-""^^ 










V . s » ' r ,. M 



r\^ . s » * / . <> 










0.^' 







* (.1 






:^ 



.^ .". 



ci. 



■ %^ A^ 






'^- \,^^ 
























^^^'^m^S^ 









^^ '^^O^ 



